Correlation matrix for the differential branching fraction extraction between different $q^2$ bins in the simultaneous fit.

The product of acceptance and efficiency ($A\epsilon$) of the $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^+\to\mathrm{K}^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ channel, as a function of the muon pair $q^2$, as measured in simulated signal events, after all the corrections applied. In the figure, regions corresponding to resonances are displayed with red markers.

Same as Table 5, but for the bins containing the J$\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) resonances.

Integrated branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^\pm \to \mathrm{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the low-$q^2$ region.

Ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ to $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\text{e}^+\text{e}^-)$, determined from the measured double ratio $R$(K) of these decays to the respective branching fractions of the decay chains $\text{B}^\pm\to\text{J/}\psi\text{K}^\pm$ with $\text{J/}\psi\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$.

Negative log likelihood function from the fit profiled as a function of the inverse ratio $R(\mathrm{K})^{-1}$.

Measured natural width

The measured inclusive ratio of production cross sections

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of 4. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1900 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

The distribution of $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ in different $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ regions for simulated background events. Events with 0 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.2 (blue), 0.2 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.6 (red), and 0.6 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 1.0 (green) are compared. All distributions are normalized to unity. The similar $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ distributions demonstrate that $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ are decorrelated.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ in $K_{\mathrm{S}}^{\mathrm{0}}$ vertices in data (black) and simulation (purple). The lower panel shows the ratio between data and simulation.

The vertex reconstruction efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

The ML tagging efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

Number of predicted and observed events in the control, validation, and search regions. Predictions are calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) and fitting the data under the background-only hypothesis. Regions are organized by $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ values, and region names corresponding with Fig. 7 are given in parentheses. The predicted number of events that pass the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection and the observed number of events that pass or fail the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection are shown in seperate rows.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

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.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Majorana scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 1.0, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 0.5, 0.5) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHbH channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bZtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHbH channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bZtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 3-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 3-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 4-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 4-jet bZbZ channel.

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 100% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 25% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 25% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 100% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

Median expected exclusion limits on the VLQ mass at 95% CL as a function of the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$ and $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW)$, with $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW) = 1 - \mathcal{B}(B \to bH) - \mathcal{B}(B \to bZ)$. The grey area corresponds to the region where the exclusion limit is less than 1000 GeV.

Median observed exclusion limits on the VLQ mass at 95% CL as a function of the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$ and $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW)$, with $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW) = 1 - \mathcal{B}(B \to bH) - \mathcal{B}(B \to bZ)$. The grey area corresponds to the region where the exclusion limit is less than 1000 GeV.

The geometric acceptance multiplied by the efficiency of the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV selection as a function of the proper decay length c$\tau$ for a scalar particle S with a mass of 40 GeV. The acceptance region for DT is defined by requiring the LLP to decay in the region with |z| < 661 cm and 380 cm < r < 736 cm. The acceptance region for CSC is defined by requiring the LLP decay in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 695.5 cm, and 661 cm < |z| < 1100 cm or in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 270 cm, and 500 cm < |z| < 661 cm. Single CSC cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in CSC; Single DT cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in DT; Double cluster requires both LLP to decay in CSC or DT. The denominator in this plot includes all generated events. The nominator includes events that pass the acceptance requirements above and $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV.

Distributions of the cluster time for signal, where S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ for a proper decay length c$\tau$ of 1 m and mass of 40 GeV, and for a background-enriched sample in data selected by inverting the $N_\text{hits}$ requirement.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m).

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for compared to the OOT background ($t_\text{clusters} < 12.5$ ns). The OOT background is representative of the overall background shape, because the background passing all the selections described above is dominated by pileup and underlying events.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for CSC-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-DT category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 3 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{0}K^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \e^{+} \e^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

Comparison of data and background pT distribution at the preselection level for the second leading jet.

Comparison of data and background BDT discriminant distributions at the preselection level for LQ mass hypotheses of 1500 GeV.

Comparison of data and background BDT discriminant distributions at the preselection level for LQ mass hypotheses of 1800 GeV.

Comparison of data and background BDT discriminant distributions at the preselection level for LQ mass hypotheses of 2000 GeV.

Total signal selection efficiency, defined as the number of events passing the selection divided by the number of generated events. Enhanced preselection is defined as preselection with the additional requirements m_uu>250 and m_uujj>m_lq. The discrete nature of the final selection for each LQ candidate mass produces the observed variation in the efficiency. Relative uncertainties are less than one percent in all cases.

Event yields in the combined 2016--2018 data at the final selection level.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the scalar LQ pair production cross section and the branching fractions β^2 as a function of mLQ. The solid lines represent the observed limits, the dashed lines represent the median expected limits, and the inner dark-green and outer light-yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals. The σtheory curves and their blue bands represent the theoretical scalar LQ pair production cross sections and the uncertainties on the cross sections due to the PDF prediction and renormalization and factorization scales, respectively.

The expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and the branching fraction β. The solid line represents the observed limits, the dashed line represents the median expected limits, and the inner dark-green and outer light-yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals. The area below the observed limit is excluded.

Post-fit distributon of BDT discriminants for $\rho_{tc}=1.0$ with $m_A$ = 350 GeV interfered with H.($m_A - m_H$ = 50 GeV)

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV