Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi=125$~\GeV\ for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, ``MDT 1/2'' represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and ``L/S'' indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=200$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=400$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Data from Figure 11a

Model-independent per-channel efficiencies calculated in the fiducial volume of the High Mass channel for the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Model-independent per-channel efficiencies calculated in the fiducial volume of the High Mass channel for the $4e$ final state.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to aa\to 4\mu$ process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. Both, the Low Mass and the High Mass channel, include $m_X = $ 15 GeV at their signal region's edges, hence the dual entry for $m_X = $ 15 GeV.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\ell$ process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. Both, the Low Mass and the High Mass channel, include $m_X = $ 15 GeV at their signal region's edges, hence the dual entry for $m_X = $ 15 GeV.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 2e2\mu$ process.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4e$ process.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ process. The step change at $m_X$ = 15 GeV is due to the change in efficiency caused by the change in fiducial phase-space definition. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4e$ process.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 2e2\mu$ process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross section of the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\ell$ process, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. All final states are combined.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\mu$ processes, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to aa\to 4\mu$ processes, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $4\mu$ and $2e2\mu$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $4\mu$, $2e2\mu$, $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $4\mu$, and $2e2\mu$ final states.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $4\mu$, $2e2\mu$, $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states.

Per-channel upper limit at 95% CL on the fiducial cross-section for the $H\rightarrow ZX \to 2\ell2e$ process.

Per-channel upper limit at 95% CL on the fiducial cross-section for the $H\rightarrow ZX \to 2\ell2\mu$ process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process, assuming SM Higgs~boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to Za\to 2\ell2\mu$ process, assuming SM Higgs~boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section times the model-dependent branching ratio divided by the SM Higgs boson production cross section for the $H\rightarrow Z_dZ_d$ process for the benchmark HAHM. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section times the model-dependent branching ratio divided by the SM Higgs boson production cross section for the $H\rightarrow aa$ process for the benchmark 2HDM+S model. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the effective Higgs mixing parameter $\kappa^\prime=\kappa \, m_H^2 / |m_H^2-m_S^2|$. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the $Z_d$ kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon$, assuming the SM Higgs boson production cross section.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the $Z$-$Z_d$ mass mixing parameter $\delta^2 \times \textrm{BR}(Z_d\to \ell\ell)$, assuming the SM Higgs boson production cross section.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x–y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|η|<1.4) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x–y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|η|<1.4) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

Distribution of the low-E_T per-event BDT in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Distribution of the high-E_T per-event BDT outputs in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the high-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the low-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final high-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B· N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final low-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B· N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

95% CL expected and observed limits on the BR of SM Higgs bosons to pairs of neutral LLPs (B_{H→ ss}), showing the ± 1 σ (green) and ± 2 σ (yellow) expected limit bands, as well as a comparison with the results from previous ATLAS searches [36,78]. The cross-section for SM Higgs boson gluon--gluon fusion production is assumed to be 48.6 pb.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 ≤ |η| < 2.5) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 ≤ |η| < 2.5) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (cτ) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass of 200 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass of 400 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ mass of 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and ± 1 σ and 2 σ bands for the Φ masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the high-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in decay position in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, ∞] m for LLPs with |η| < 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, ∞ ] m for LLPs with |η|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or τ in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) × (number of p_T bins × number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the high-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.5%, the results are typically accurate to around 25%, but below this the efficiency can be overestimated and therefore should not be used for re-interpration.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the low-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, ∞] m for LLPs with |η| < 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, ∞ ] m for LLPs with |η|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or τ in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) × (number of p_T bins × number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the low-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.15%, the results are typically accurate to around 33%, and below this the efficiency is typically accurate up to a factor of 3.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in merged two-prong signal region.

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.

The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.

The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.

The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Ht$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Cutflow table listing the number of events passing each criterion for a $T$-quark hypothesis with a mass of 1.6 TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$. The initial signal event yield is the predicted number of $T$-quark events inclusive in the Higgs-boson and top-quark decays for 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Wb$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).