Post-fit distributions of a background-only fit to the SR and the CRs of the NN output in the SR for the $tc\gamma$ left-handed coupling. In addition, the expected signal is overlaid for an effective coupling strength corresponding to the observed limit multiplied by a factor of ten.

Post-fit distributions of a background-only fit to the SR and the CRs of the NN output in the SR for the $tc\gamma$ right-handed coupling. In addition, the expected signal is overlaid for an effective coupling strength corresponding to the observed limit multiplied by a factor of ten.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=250$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $T$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $B$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $T\bar T$ cross section as a function of $T$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Wb$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Zt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Wt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Zb$)=1.

Distribution of $v_{3}$ from MBT events plotted as a function of the A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of $v_{3}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of the A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of $v_{3}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of the A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from MBT events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from MBT events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from MBT events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of $v_{2}$ from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of the event centrality and A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-HS pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-HS pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-HS pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-HS pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-HS pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-HS pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ for 0-5% centrality.

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (0.5-2 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (2-9 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from MBT events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>75$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative UE-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Distribution of relative HS-UE pair fractions from $p_{T}^{jet}>100$ GeV events plotted as a function of centrality A-particle $p_\mathrm{T}$ in (9-100 GeV).

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initialted resonant production of the mass of the resonance times the branch ratio of X to HH and the BR of HH to gammagamma WW, without assuming the BR of H to gammagamma and H to WW.

Data and SM predictions in SRs for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in SR1Lbb-Medium. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. Example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ before the final requirement on $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in SR1Lyy-a. The expected contributions from both the peaking and non-peaking backgrounds are shown as stacked colored histograms. Two example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ before the final requirement on $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in SR1Lyy-b. The expected contributions from both the peaking and non-peaking backgrounds are shown as stacked colored histograms. Two example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Observed and predicted distributions for $m_{jj}$ in SRSS-j1. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. An example SUSY model is superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Observed and predicted distributions for $m_{T2}$ in SRSS-j23. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. An example SUSY model is superimposed for illustrative purposes.

The observed exclusion for the $0lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $0lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

Acceptance for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-Low signal region.

Acceptance for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-High signal region.

Upper cross section limits for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Medium signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Medium signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Upper cross section limits for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis.

Acceptance for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-a. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-a.

Acceptance for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-b. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-b.

Upper cross section limits for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis.

Acceptance for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j1. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j1. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j23. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j23. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-1J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-1J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-0J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-0J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Upper cross section limits for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis.

Upper cross section limits for the $3l$ analysis.

Event selection cutflow for SM background (pre-fit) and representative signal samples for the $0lb\bar{b}$ SR. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 50K and 44K events, respectively. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W \rightarrow qq'$ decays. ``All events" for SUSY scenarios represent the total number of signal events for the models considered taking into account the BR of $W \rightarrow qq'$ (0.674) and $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ (0.582).

Event selection cutflow for SM background (pre-fit) and representative signal samples for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 28K, 29K and 29K events, respectively. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W \rightarrow l \nu$ decays. ``All events" for SUSY scenarios represent the total number of signal events for the models considered taking into account the BR of $W \rightarrow l \nu$ (0.324) and $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ (0.582).

Event selection cutflow is presented for SM background (pre-fit) and three signal scenarios for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ channel SRs. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. The uncertainties only include statistical uncertainties. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 10K events in all cases. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and $W \rightarrow l \nu$ decays. The data-driven-estimated non-peaking background is not evaluated at each stage of the selection, hence only the peaking background cutflow is presented.

Event selection cutflow is presented for one signal scenario for SRSS-j23. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 175 GeV and massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ with 100% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 75K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 7$ GeV. ``2SS leptons" indicates the selection of two same-sign electrons or muons as described in the text (Section 6.4).

Event selection cutflow is presented for one signal scenario for SRSS-j1. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 175 GeV and massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ with 100% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 75K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 7$ GeV. ``2SS leptons" indicates the selection of two same-sign electrons or muons as described in the text (Section 6.4).

Event selection cut-flow is presented for one signal scenario for each signal regions. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 150 GeV and massless LSP with 100 \% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 123K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with pT $>$ 7 GeV. ``3L+Trigger" indicates three-lepton and trigger requirements. ``Preselection" includes the veto on bjets, ETmiss above 20 GeV and invariant mass of the three leptons above 20 GeV.

Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.

Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).