Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Measured natural width

The measured inclusive ratio of production cross sections

Comparison of the observed (black points) and expected (histograms) numbers of events in nonoverlapping $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ intervals in the STA-STA dimuon category, in the signal region optimized for the RPV SUSY model. Yellow and green stacked filled histograms represent mean expected background contributions from QCD and DY, respectively, while statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, for events in all mass intervals combined, for both the validation (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) < 6) and signal (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) > 6) regions. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events. Statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, for events in all mass intervals combined, for both the validation (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) < 6) and signal (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) > 6) regions. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events. Statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: >20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: >20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$ is 7200 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 200\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 200 GeV$ is 840 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$ is 50 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.

Fractions of signal events with zero (green), one (blue), and two (red) STA muons matched to TMS muons by the STA to TMS association procedure, as a function of generated $L_{xy}$, in all HAHM signal samples combined.

Efficiencies of the Run 2 and Run 3 displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the requirements of the following sets of trigger paths: the Run 2 (2018) triggers (dashed black); the Run 3 (2022, L3) triggers (blue); the Run 3 (2022, L2) triggers (red); and the OR of all these triggers (Run 3 (2022), black). The lower panel shows the ratio of the overall Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.

Efficiencies of the Run 2 (2018) (red) and Run 3 (2022) (black) sets of displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $m(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal events with $c\tau = 1\ cm$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the detector acceptance and the requirements of the indicated set of trigger paths. The lower panel shows the ratio of the Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.

Efficiencies of the Run 2 (2018) (red) and Run 3 (2022) (black) sets of displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $m(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal events with $c\tau = 10\ m$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the detector acceptance and the requirements of the indicated set of trigger paths. The lower panel shows the ratio of the Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$ in different years of data taking. Efficiencies are computed as the ratios of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate passes all 2016 (dashed green), 2018 (dashed red), and 2022 (solid black) trigger and offline selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the 2022 efficiency to the 2018 efficiency (dashed red) and to the 2016 efficiency (dashed green).

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$ in different years of data taking. Efficiencies are computed as the ratios of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate passes all 2016 (dashed green), 2018 (dashed red), and 2022 (solid black) trigger and offline selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the 2022 efficiency to the 2018 efficiency (dashed red) and to the 2016 efficiency (dashed green).

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 70-500 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 70-500 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (ee)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\mu\mu)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\tau\tau)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (ee)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\mu\mu)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\tau\tau)$ PS with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (ee)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\mu\mu)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi (\tau\tau)$ H-like with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (ee)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\mu\mu)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\tau\tau)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (ee)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\mu\mu)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\tau\tau)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (ee)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\mu\mu)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi (\tau\tau)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (ee)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\mu\mu)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\tau\tau)$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (ee)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\mu\mu)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\tau\tau)$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (ee)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\mu\mu)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dimuon pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi (\tau\tau)$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the ee decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the signal production cross section and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding Limit on $\sigma B(ee)$, $\sigma B(\mu\mu)$ and $\sigma B(\tau\tau)$ plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\mu\mu$ decay scenario. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ H-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings in the $\tau\tau$ decay scenario. The red line is the theoretical prediction for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on $g^2_{tS}$ for the dilaton-like $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal model. Masses of the $\phi$ boson above 300 GeV are not probed for the dilaton-like signal model as the $\phi$ branching fraction into top quark-antiquark pairs becomes nonnegligible.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on $g^2_{tPS}$ for the axion-like $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal model. Masses of the $\phi$ boson above 300 GeV are not probed for the axion-like signal model as the $\phi$ branching fraction into top quark-antiquark pairs becomes nonnegligible.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $W\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and branching fraction for the H-like production of X$\phi \rightarrow$ ee. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Scalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and branching fraction for the H-like production of X$\phi \rightarrow \mu\mu$. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Pseudoscalar with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level upper limits on $sin^2 \theta$ for the H-like production and decay of X$\phi$ signal model.

Overlay of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the coupling parameter and branching fraction of the $Z\phi$ Higgs-like with $\phi$ decaying into dielectron, dimuon or ditau pair. Theory cross section for all signals is provived in separate figure Cross section ($pp \rightarrow \ X\phi) [pb]$ and tabulated observed and expected upper limits for each signal model on corresponding to one flavor limit plots.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $g_{tS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $g_{tS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $g_{tS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tPS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $g_{tPS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tPS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $g_{tPS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tPS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $g_{tPS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

Example of the signal shape paramertization for W$\phi$ signal, $\phi\rightarrow ee $. Only for illustration purpose. All signals parametrization for all coupling scenarios are provided in SignalParametrizationele.root file and README file with instructions under Additional resources.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $ee$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into an electron pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

Example of the signal shape paramertization for W$\phi$ signal, $\phi\rightarrow $\mu\mu$ $. Only for illustration purpose. All signals parametrization for all coupling scenarios are provided in SignalParametrizationmu.root file and README file with instructions under Additional resources.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\mu\mu$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a muon pair. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis.

Example of the signal shape paramertization for W$\phi$ signal, $\phi\rightarrow $\tau\tau$ $. Only for illustration purpose. All signals parametrization for all coupling scenarios are provided in SignalParametrizationtau.root file and README file with instructions under Additional resources.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ of the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow $$\tau\tau$$)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a tau pair.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($t \bar{t} \phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the mixing angle $sin^2 \theta$ and branching fraction for combined X$\phi$ signal model. Limits for Higgs-like production of $\phi$ boson in the dielectron channel. The inner (green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region corresponding to the Z boson mass window veto. Branching fractions B($\phi \rightarrow $ ee) is arbitrary.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($t \bar{t} \phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the mixing angle $sin^2 \theta$ and branching fraction for combined X$\phi$ signal model. Limits for Higgs-like production of $\phi$ boson in the dimuon channel. The inner (green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region corresponding to the Z boson mass window veto. Branching fractions B($\phi \rightarrow \mu\mu$) is arbitrary.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($W\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $W\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on $sin^2 \theta$ where $\theta$ is mixing angle, for combined dimuon and ditau channels of X$\phi$ signal model. The inner(green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($W\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $W\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the square of the Yukawa coupling to top quarks $g^2_{S}$ for combined dimuon and ditau channels of $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal model with dilaton-like $\phi$ boson. The inner (green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($W\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $W\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the square of the Yukawa coupling to top quarks $g^2_{PS}$ for combined dimuon and ditau channels of $t\bar{t} \phi$ signal model with ”fermi-philic” axion-like $\phi$ boson. The inner (green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($Z\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $Z\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($Z\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $Z\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\sigma$($Z\phi$) and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\sigma$ denotes the production cross section and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The red dash-dotted line is the theoretical prediction for $\sigma\bf{\it{B}}$ of the $Z\phi$ signal. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $g_{tS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $g^{2}_{tPS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $g_{tPS}$ denotes the coupling of the $\phi$ boson to the top quark and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $t \bar{t} \phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $W\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{S}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with scalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{S}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $\Lambda^{-2}_{PS}$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with pseudoscalar couplings, where $\Lambda_{PS}$ denotes the mass scale of the effective interaction and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

The 95% confidence level observed upper limits on the product of $sin^2 \theta$ and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ for the $Z\phi$ signal with H-like production, where $\theta$ denotes the mixing angle of the Higgs boson with the $\phi$ boson and $\bf{\it{B}}(\phi \rightarrow \ell \ell)$ is the branching fraction of the $\phi$ boson into a lepton pair of given flavor. Exclusions on the dielectron, dimuon, and ditau decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson are shown with the green, blue, and orange solid lines, respectively. The vertical gray band indicates the mass region not considered in the analysis in the dielectron and dimuon decay scenarios of the $\phi$ boson.

Selected signal shapes of the $W\phi$(ee) signal for illustration purposes. All shape parametrizations for all coupling scenarios of the $X\phi$(ee) signal are provided in the SignalShapes_XPhiToEleEle.root file, and a README file with instructions is provided under Additional Resources.

Selected signal shapes of the $W\phi$$(\mu\mu)$ signal for illustration purposes. All shape parametrizations for all coupling scenarios of the $X\phi$$(\mu\mu)$ signal are provided in the SignalShapes_XPhiToMuMu.root file, and a README file with instructions is provided under Additional Resources.

Selected signal shapes of the $W\phi$$(\tau\tau)$ signal for illustration purposes. All shape parametrizations for all coupling scenarios of the $X\phi$$(\tau\tau)$ signal are provided in the SignalShapes_XPhiToTauTau.root file, and a README file with instructions is provided under Additional Resources.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs in category A, events with three light leptons of which at least two form an OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs of the '${\geq}\ 3\ell$' search in category B, events with three light leptons and no OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting WZ topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the corresponding compressed region. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the WH topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting combined contours for these two topologies. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

GMSB model: exclusion limit for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches along with the input searches. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.