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).

Dijet signal efficiencies as a function of the signal mass and lifetime for events satisfying all event and vertex requirements, with corrections based on systematic differences in the vertex reconstruction efficiency between data and simulation.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ for $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data and three simulated multijet signal samples each with a mass of 1600 GeV. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for the samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The last bin includes the overflow events. This bin includes one event in data with a vertex with large $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ that appears to arise from tracks originating from separate pp interaction vertices, consistent with background.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 3-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 4-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using $\geq$5-track one-vertex event information. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Predicted yields for the background-only normalized template, predicted yields for three simulated multijet signals each with a mass of 1600 GeV, and the observed yield in each $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$ bin. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The uncertainties in the signal yields and the systematic uncertainties in the background prediction reflect the systematic uncertainties given in the text.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals. For $m$ = 2400 GeV, the expected neutralino cross section is $\approx 8\times 10^{-5}$ fb and is not shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Data-to-simulation efficiency correction factors, shown for multijet and dijet signal topologies in several ranges of $c\tau$. Note that these correction factors account for the two long-lived particles in the simulated events, and are therefore the total correction factors used to scale event yields rather than the correction factors one would apply to individual vertices.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 3-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track and 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 4-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using one-vertex event information. No $\geq$5-track two-vertex data events pass the selection.

The timing distribution of the background sources predicted to contribute to the signal region, compared to those for a representative signal model. The time is defined by the jet in the event with the largest $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ passing the relevant selection. The distributions for the major backgrounds are taken from control regions and normalized to the predictions. The observed data is shown by the black points. No events are observed in data for $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,$ns (indicated with a vertical black line).

The product of the acceptance and efficiency in the $c\tau_{0}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{g}}$ plane for the GMSB model, after all requirements.

The product of the acceptance and efficiency in the $c\tau_{0}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{g}}$ plane for the GMSB model, after all requirements.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed and expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the gluino pair production cross section for a gluino GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ GeV. The one (two) standard deviation variation in the expected limit is shown in the inner green (outer yellow) band. The blue solid line shows the observed limit obtained by the CMS displaced jet search

The observed and expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the gluino pair production cross section for a gluino GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ GeV. The one (two) standard deviation variation in the expected limit is shown in the inner green (outer yellow) band. The blue solid line shows the observed limit obtained by the CMS displaced jet search

The distribution (normalized to unity) of number of ECAL cells hit in the jet for jets in a background enriched data sample (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets satisfying signal region requirements (except those on $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ and $N^{\mathrm{cell}}_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of number of ECAL cells hit in the jet for jets in a background enriched data sample (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets satisfying signal region requirements (except those on $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ and $N^{\mathrm{cell}}_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{HEF}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $\mathrm{HEF}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{HEF}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $\mathrm{HEF}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction}$ for a data sample enriched in main bunch backgrounds (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $|t_{\mathrm{jet}}| < 3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} >20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $p_\mathrm{T}tf$ for a data sample enriched in main bunch backgrounds (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $|t_{\mathrm{jet}}| < 3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} >20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $p_\mathrm{T}tf$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} < 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} < 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$).

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset with no cleaning selection applied (a) and after all jet cleaning selections are applied (b) in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} > 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds. The cleaning selections are shown to reduce the backgrounds by many orders of magnitude.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset with no cleaning selection applied (a) and after all jet cleaning selections are applied (b) in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} > 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds. The cleaning selections are shown to reduce the backgrounds by many orders of magnitude.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} < 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds (all other jet cleaning selections are applied). Clear contributions from jets from satellite bunch collisions can be seen peaked around -5, 5 and 10 ns.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} < 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds (all other jet cleaning selections are applied). Clear contributions from jets from satellite bunch collisions can be seen peaked around -5, 5 and 10 ns.

Contribution to the delayed time of jets from the $\beta$ of the gluino is plotted against the delay contribution from the difference (assuming straight line paths) between the path taken by the gluino and the particle forming the jet from the path length for a particle travelling directly to the same position on the ECAL barrel for gluino $c\tau_{0} = 10$ m and mass of 1000 Gev (top) and 3000 GeV (bottom). The dominant contribution is shown to be the gluino $\beta$.

Contribution to the delayed time of jets from the $\beta$ of the gluino is plotted against the delay contribution from the difference (assuming straight line paths) between the path taken by the gluino and the particle forming the jet from the path length for a particle travelling directly to the same position on the ECAL barrel for gluino $c\tau_{0} = 10$ m and mass of 1000 Gev (top) and 3000 GeV (bottom). The dominant contribution is shown to be the gluino $\beta$.

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=1000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=1000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=3000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=3000$ and various proper decay lengths

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Measured misidentification probability distribution as a function of track multiplicity for the EMJ-1 criteria group defined in Table 2. The red up-pointing triangles are for b jets while the blue down-pointing triangles are for light-flavor jets. The horizontal lines on the data points indicate the variable bin width.

The $H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 8 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least two jets tagged by loose emerging jet criteria.

The number of associated tracks distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 8 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least two jets tagged by loose emerging jet criteria.

The $H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 9 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least one jet tagged by loose emerging jet criteria and large $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$.

The number of associated tracks distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 9 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least one jet tagged by loose emerging jet criteria and large $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the signal cross section for models with dark pion mass $(m_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ of 5 GeV in the proper decay length $(c\tau_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ versus dark mediator mass $(m_{\mathrm{X_{DK}}})$ plane.

Dark mediator mass exclusion limits at 95% CL derived from theoretical cross sections for models with dark pion mass $(m_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ of 5 GeV in the proper decay length $(c\tau_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ versus dark mediator mass $(m_{\mathrm{X_{DK}}})$ plane.

Distribution of jet girth of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of uGNN output score of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of aGNN output score of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Template fit of the DeepJet discriminator used to determine the b jet fraction of the non-EMJ tagged jets in data events that pass the 1-EMJ selection of the event selection criteria defined in the paper.

The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets and light jets as a function of jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ for the taggers u-tag 1, u-tag 2, and u-tag 3, as defined in the paper, evaluated using data and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples in events containing a high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ photon.

The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets and light jets as a function of jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ for the taggers uGNN tag 1, uGNN tag 2, and uGNN tag 3, as defined in the paper, evaluated using data and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples in events containing a high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ photon.

The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets and light jets as a function of jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ for the taggers u-tag 4 and u-tag 5, as defined in the paper, evaluated using data and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples in events containing a high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ photon.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario model-generic and GNN EMJ tagging methods.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the flavor-aligned scenario model-generic and GNN EMJ tagging methods.

The observed yield of events in data satisfying the validation selection criteria with at least two jets passing the corresponding validation tag, and the estimation based on the misidentification rate calculated using validation events with exactly one jet passing the validation tagger scaled by the factor given in Equation (4) of the paper.

The estimated number of events from the background prediction based on control samples in data and the observed event yields.

Distribution of event $H_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of second leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of third leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of forth leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of Track $d_{xy}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $D_{N}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $d_{xy}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of jet $\overline{\tau}_{2/1}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of $|\Delta\eta|$ between jet and tracks of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of $|\Delta\phi|$ between jet and tracks of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $d_{xy}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $p_\mathrm{T}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $d_{z}$ of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

Distribution of track $p_\mathrm{T}$ fraction of CMS data, SM multijet MC events, and various signal samples. Events are required to pass the trigger requirements and also have 4 jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{GeV}$. The distribution from various processes have their total count normalized to 1.

The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets and light jets as a function of jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ for the taggers a-tag 1, a-tag 2, a-tag 3, and a-tag 4, as defined in the paper, evaluated using data and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples in events containing a high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ photon.

The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets and light jets as a function of jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ for the taggers aGNN tag 1, aGNN tag 2, and aGNN tag 3, as defined in the paper, evaluated using data and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples in events containing a high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ photon.

Signal acceptance of signal models in the unflavored scenario with using the designated cut sets with the model agnostic and GNN EJ tagging methods.

Signal acceptance of signal models in the flavor-aligned scenario with using the designated cut sets with the model agnostic and GNN EJ tagging methods.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the unflavored scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Tagging efficiency and its uncertainty of the taggers used to select signal jets in the flavor-aligned scenario, as a function of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $|\eta|$ of the signal jet.

Distribution of jet-associated tracks of jets in SM multijet processes that pass the basic kinematic selection, the uGNN tag 1 tagging criteria, and aGNN tag 1 EMJ tagging criteria as a function of $\Delta R$ between the jet and track of interest and $\mathrm{sign}(d_{xy})\cdot\ln\left( 1+\left\lvert\frac{d_{xy}}{1\mathrm{cm}}\right\rvert\right)$, with $d_{xy}$ being the transverse impact parameter of the track of interest.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the u-set 4 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the u-set 1 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the u-set 2 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the u-set 3 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the u-set 5 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the uGNN set 3 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the uGNN set 1 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the uGNN set 2 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the a-set 3 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the a-set 1 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the a-set 2 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the a-set 4 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the a-set 5 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the aGNN set 3 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the aGNN set 1 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.

Example cut flow used for selecting signals events using the aGNN set 2 selection criteria. Both background and MC events has been normalized to unity.