Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with nominal width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 3\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with narrow width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 0.01\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$, where $\varphi$ is the radion. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$, where $V$ is a beyond-the-SM vector boson. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $Z_{R} \to ggg$. The acceptance is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$)/$N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings).

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed local significance for a 3-body decay $ggg$ resonance, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue solid line) and narrow width (red dashed line).

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $ggg$ resonance.

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $qqq$ resonance.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $Z_{R}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $G_{KK}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $q^{*}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to Z_{R} \to ggg$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to G_{KK} \to \varphi(gg)g$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

The number of events in data and simulations after the fit to data in the Top$\gamma$ CR, SS$WW\gamma$ CR, and signal region.

The distributions of the invariant mass of the dilepton-photon system after the signal region selection before the fit to data.The shaded band represents the Monte Carlo statistical unc

Upper limits on the cross section and derived limits in terms of Yukawa coupling at 95% CL for Hγ production initiated by light quarks.

The distributions of the invariant mass of the transverse mass of the WW system after the signal region selection before the fit to data.The shaded band represents the Monte Carlo statistical unc

The distributions of the invariant mass of the dilepton-photon system after the signal region selection before the fit to data.The shaded band represents the Monte Carlo statistical unc

The unrolled two-dimensional mTWW-mll$\gamma$ distributions with category 0 jet after the fit to data. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and expected background. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties in the predictions.

The distributions of the invariant mass of the transverse mass of the WW system after the signal region selection before the fit to data.The shaded band represents the Monte Carlo statistical unc

The unrolled two-dimensional mTWW-mll$\gamma$ distributions with category 1more jets after the fit to data. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and expected background. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties in the predictions.

The unrolled two-dimensional mTWW-mll$\gamma$ distributions with category 0 jet after the fit to data. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and expected background. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties in the predictions.

The unrolled two-dimensional mTWW-mll$\gamma$ distributions with category 1more jets after the fit to data. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and expected background. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties in the predictions.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Fiducial cross sections from the measurements of all observables, compared to predictions from different ttbb simulation approaches. For each of the normalized differential measurements the fiducial cross section in the respective phase space is also determined. In the paper only one representative observable is quoted for each fiducial phase space, while here the measured cross section with the uncertainties from the fit to the respective observable is summarized.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Exclusion limits on the total cross section of a scalar LQ as a function of LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the total cross section of a vector LQ as a function of LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the mass of a scalar LQ as a function of the coupling strength $\lambda$ under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the mass of a vector LQ as a function of the coupling strength $\lambda$ under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ as a function of the LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a vector LQ as a function of the LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Inclusive cross section predictions up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured production cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ at QCD NLO accuracy from MCFM using different PDF sets

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Two dimensional observed likelihood profile scan as a function of mu_ggH and mu_qqH

Feynman diagrams of $\mathrm{Z'}\to\mu^{-}\mu^{+}$ with a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson produced via $\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\to\mathrm{Z'}$, with one $\mathrm{b}$ quark and one $\overline{\mathrm{s}}$ quark in the final state.

Distribution of $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})$ as obtained from simulation in events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ passing all the other selection requirements. In this search, we require $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})>175~\mathrm{GeV}$. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the simulation of the SM backgrounds, while the overlaid open histograms illustrate the size and shape of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model described in Eq. (1), for several $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. For illustrative purposes, we choose couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$. The contribution of background processes other than DY and $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ is so small that it is only barely visible at the bottom of the stacked histogram. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. Histograms are normalized to unit area.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}=1$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}\geq 2$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} = 1$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 2$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.25$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.75$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=1$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The dotted curve for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ lies beyond the displayed $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range and is, therefore, not shown. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The dotted curve denotes the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and the dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range preferred from a global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in red solid line, and the background component of the fit in red dotted line. Events and fit in each category are weighted by $S/(S+B)$. The one and two standard deviation uncertainty bands of the background component are shown in green and yellow. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

Observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limits on $\sigma(p p \to X(146) \to e \mu)$ for each individual analysis category (as shown in the left axis label) and for the combination of all analysis categories assuming the relative SM-like production cross sections of the ggH and VBF production modes.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 0 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 1 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 2 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 3 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category VBF cat 0 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category VBF cat 1 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

Best fit of $\sigma(p p \to X(146) \to e \mu)$ for each analysis category (black point) compared to the best fit for the combination of all analysis categories (blue line). The one standard deviation uncertainty of the per-category best fit is shown in red line and the one standard deviation uncertainty of the combined best fit is shown in green band.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.0.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.1.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.2.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.3.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.4.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.5.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.6.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.7.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.8.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.9.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 1.0.

Measured min-$d_{xy}$ distribution in the 2-match category, after requiring the $d_{xy}$ muon to pass the isolation requirement $I_{\mathrm{rel}}^{\mathrm{PF}} <0.25$ (i. e., the B and D bins of the ABCD plane). Overlaid with a red histogram is the background predicted from the region of the ABCD plane failing the same requirement (the A and C bins), as well as three signal benchmark hypotheses (as defined in the legends), assuming $\alpha_D = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (the fine-structure constant). The red hatched bands correspond to the background prediction uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow.

Two-dimensional exclusion surfaces for $\Delta = 0.1 \, m_1$ as a function of the DM mass $m_1$ and the signal strength $y$, with $m_{A'} = 3 \, m_1$. Filled histograms denote observed limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to A' \to \chi_2 \chi_1) \, \mathcal{B}(\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \mu^+ \mu^-)$. Solid (dashed) curves denote the observed (expected) exclusion limits at 95% CL, with 68% CL uncertainty bands around the expectation. Regions above the curves are excluded, depending on the $\alpha_D$ hypothesis: $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}} = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (dark blue) or 0.1 (light magenta).

Two-dimensional exclusion surfaces for $\Delta = 0.4 \, m_1$ as a function of the DM mass $m_1$ and the signal strength $y$, with $m_{A'} = 3 \, m_1$. Filled histograms denote observed limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to A' \to \chi_2 \chi_1) \, \mathcal{B}(\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \mu^+ \mu^-)$. Solid (dashed) curves denote the observed (expected) exclusion limits at 95% CL, with 68% CL uncertainty bands around the expectation. Regions above the curves are excluded, depending on the $\alpha_D$ hypothesis: $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}} = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (dark blue) or 0.1 (light magenta).

The signal cross-sections values of the signal QBH RS1 with n=1 extra dimensions, as a function of threshold mass

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for QBH ADD model, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for QBH RS1 models, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for q* signal, as a function of resonance mass

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for b* signal, as a function of resonance mass of the signal.

Distributions of the γ+jet invariant mass generated from various signal samples for reconstructed mass 4 TeV

Fitting distribution of data with expected q*, and QBH signal events, and fit parameters p0= 3.05674e+00, p1 = 10.5343, p3 = 4.15163 and p4 = 0.107405

Fitting distribution of data with expected b* events, and fit parameters p0= 1.45055e+03, p1 = 2.04830e+01, p3 = -4.16760e-01 and p4 = -5.07768e-01

Fitting distribution of data with expected b* events for 0btag category, and fit parameters p0= 2.44120e+00, p1 = 1.08886e+01, p3 = 4.23198e+00 and p4 = 1.16300e-01

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for q* signal coupling f = 1.0, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =1.0

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for the q* signal coupling f = 0.5, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.5

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for q* coupling f = 0.1, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.1

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 1.0, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =1.0

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 0.5, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.5

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 0.1, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.1

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for QBH ADD signal, as a function of the mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of ADD signal

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for QBH RS1 signal, as a function of the mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of RS1 signal

The expected and observed exclusion mass limits for q* and b* signals, as a function coupling multiplier

The observed exclusion mass limits for b* signal, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pT4l (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of mHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of mjj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of absdetajj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of dphijj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTHjj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TBjmax (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj1_pTj2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pT4l_pTHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1_massZ2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 3)

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of absdetajj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TBjmax in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0m in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mass4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pT4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTHjj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1Zg in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of njets.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TCjmax in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of rapidity4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dint in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dcp in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costhetastar in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0hp in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mjj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of dphijj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dint in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0m in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ2 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1Zg in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dcp in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0hp in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta2 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costhetastar in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of njets vs pt.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of rapidity4l vs pT4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj1 vs pTj2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pT4l vs pTHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 vs massZ2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TCjmax vs pT4l in v3.

Measured ratio of $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}/\mathcal{B}_{2\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$

Comparison of the $m_{miss}$ shapes for the simulated signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as describe in the text, for a generated $m_{X}$ mass of 1000 GeV. The distributions are shown for single(+z)-single(−z) proton reconstruction categories.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for different proton reconstruction categories in the $Z \rightarrow \mu\mu $ analysis, and for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the positive CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the negative CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The di-proton invariant mass is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The $m_{miss}$ is shown.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z\rightarrow ee$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z\rightarrow \mu\mu$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $\gamma$ analysis.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the 2016--2018 data set for three different categories in the combined single-electron and single-muon channels. The three categories are defined by the number of resolved t tags ($N_\textrm{RT}$), b tags ($N_\textrm{b}$), and jets ($N_\textrm{j}$), selected as representative based on their sensitivity to signal. Here, $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + \geq 1 \textrm{b}$ refers to $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events with at least one additional b jet, while $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + 0 \textrm{b}$ includes all other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events not produced in association with a boson. The TOP grouping contains single top quark production along with the other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ processes not explicitly shown, and EW refers to events that contain W and Z bosons but no top quarks.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. Uncertainties shown in this table are statistical and systematic uncertainties respectively. In this table, SSDL\&ML and OSDL (2016) represent results from EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082 respectively.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the 2016--2018 data set for three different categories in the combined single-electron and single-muon channels. The three categories are defined by the number of resolved t tags ($N_\textrm{RT}$), b tags ($N_\textrm{b}$), and jets ($N_\textrm{j}$), selected as representative based on their sensitivity to signal. Here, $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + \geq 1 \textrm{b}$ refers to $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events with at least one additional b jet, while $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + 0 \textrm{b}$ includes all other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events not produced in association with a boson. The TOP grouping contains single top quark production along with the other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ processes not explicitly shown, and EW refers to events that contain W and Z bosons but no top quarks. The backgrounds and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal (derived from the fit) are shown as a stacked histogram. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit. While the bins are shown to be equal width, they do not correspond to equal width in BDT value.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, HT > 1400 GeV. The background from QCD multijet and \ttbar production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the \tttt signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The sample VR category shown is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, $H_T > 1400$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 2$, HT > 1100 GeV. The background from QCD multijet and \ttbar production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the \tttt signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The sample VR category shown is defined by $N_\textrm{RT} \geq 2$, $H_T > 1100$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty.

Expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from each final state and the combination with previous CMS results (EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082). The same-sign dilepton and multilepton (SSDL\&ML) final state results are from EPJC 80 (2020) 75.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, $H_T > 1400$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. Uncertainties shown in this table are statistical and systematic uncertainties respectively. In this table, SSDL\&ML and OSDL (2016) represent results from EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082 respectively.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT} = 2$, $H_T > 1100$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit.

Expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from each final state and the combination with previous CMS results (EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082). The same-sign dilepton and multilepton (SSDL\&ML) final state results are from EPJC 80 (2020) 75.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. This table shows production from each analysis channel in this Letter, the combination of those channels, the results from previously published results, and the full combination of all CMS 2016-2018 results.

Electron $p_{T}$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the electron channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Muon $p_T$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_T^{miss}$ distribution in the muon channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the E+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the MU+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Theoretical prediction for the production and decay cross-section of SSM WPRIME bosons (W --> LEPTON + NU) as a function of the WPRIME mass, for the range 200-6400 GeV and inclusive in phase-space (no cuts). The uncertainty shown covers PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties. These theoretical predictions are obtained with PYTHIA (LO) and corrected to NNLO in QCD using FEWZ program.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the electron channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime, being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW, as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the muon channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime , being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the electron channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the muon channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the combined electron and muon channels for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{231}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a STAU mediator, as a function of the mass of STAU, for the electron channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$=0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying the ones shown by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{132}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a stau mediator, as a function of the mass of the stau, for the muon channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ = 0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying these ones by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Region in the oblique (W,Y) parameter phase space allowed by the current analysis at 95% CL. The combination of the electron and muon channel distributions from the 2017 and 2018 data sets at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV is used, having 101 fb-1 of luminosity.

Negative Log-Likelihood for the determination of the oblique W parameter, for the combination of the electron and muon channel and for 2017 and 2018 data sets (L=101 fb-1) at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV.

Total background estimate and observed data in all bins used in the limit calculation for the SSM WPRIME limits. The total event sample is split into the three years of data taking and the two lepton flavors.The distributions being shown are $M_T$ ones. The associated integrated luminosities for each year are of 35.9, 41.5, and 59.4 fb$̣^{-1}. The mass bins are numbered in ascending order.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

The profile likelihood scan as a function of Bs to mu+mu- and B0 to mu+mu- decay branching fractions in 2D.

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.

Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 4.9\%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (4.9%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 4.9\%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (4.9%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Expected and observed upper limits on the AQGC operators $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$, with no unitarization. The $y$ axis shows the limit on the ratio of the observed cross section to the cross section predicted for each anomalous coupling value ($\sigma_\mathrm{AQGC}$).

Limits on LEP-like dimension-6 anomalous quartic gauge coupling parameters, with and without unitarization via a clipping procedure.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption of vanishing $WWZ\gamma$ couplings to eliminate some parameters. When quoting limits on one of the operators, the other is fixed to zero. The results for $|f_{M,0}/\Lambda^{4}|$ and $|f_{M,4}/\Lambda^{4}|$ are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV, when the other parameter is fixed to the SM value of zero.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ and $a^W_C$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption that all $f_{M,i}$ except one are equal to zero. The results are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$ with unitarization imposed by clipping the signal model at 1.4 TeV. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^Z_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^Z$ and $a_C^Z$ couplings, respectively.

The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Correlations between bins in the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the statistical uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.