Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.

Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.

Observed (black solid curve) and expected (black dashed curve) 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of its mass with ( fW, fWW) fixed at (0, 6200). The green (inner) and yellow (outer) bands represent 1 and 2 sigma uncertainty in the expected limits. Theoretical predictions (red solid curve) as functions of the heavy Higgs boson mass are overlaid.

Observed (black solid curve) and expected (black dashed curve) 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of its mass with ( fW, fWW) fixed at (1350, 0). The green (inner) and yellow (outer) bands represent 1 and 2 sigma uncertainty in the expected limits. Theoretical predictions (red solid curve) as functions of the heavy Higgs boson mass are overlaid.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$). The observed best-fit value of $\kappa_\lambda$ for the generic model is shifted slightly relative to the other models because of its correlation with the best-fit values of the $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_t$ and $\kappa_\tau$ parameters, which are slightly below, but compatible with unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination derived from the combined single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$).

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the sum of the ggF HH and VBF HH production cross-section from the bbbb, bb$\tau\tau$ and bb$\gamma\gamma$ decay channels, and their statistical combination. The value $m_H$=125.09 GeV is assumed when deriving the predicted SM cross section. The expected limit and the corresponding error bands are derived assuming the absence of the HH process with all nuisance parameters profiled to the observed data. The SM prediction together with its theoretical uncertainty is also shown (red vertical band).

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Pre-fit comparison between data and background in the baseline SR for two of the variables used as input for the BSM pBDT: HT.

Data and post-fit background comparison for the distributions of the discriminant variables fitted in the control regions obtained with the background-only fit: CR HF e.

Data and post-fit background comparison for the distributions of the discriminant variables fitted in the control regions obtained with the background-only fit: CR HF mu.

Data and post-fit background comparison for the distributions of the discriminant variables fitted in the control regions obtained with the background-only fit: CR Conv.

Data and post-fit background comparison for the distributions of the discriminant variables fitted in the control regions obtained with the background-only fit: CR ttW.

Data and post-fit background comparison for the distributions of the discriminant variables fitted in the control regions obtained with the background-only fit: CR lowBDT.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit in the validation region defined for ttW+jets events: number of jets.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit in the validation region defined for ttW+jets events: SM BDT.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 400 GeV.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 1000 GeV.

Observed (black solid line) and expected (black dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the ttH/A cross-section times branching fraction of H/A->tt as a function of mH/A.

Observed (red line) and expected (black dashed line) exclusion regions at 95% CL in the tan(beta) versus mass plane assuming that both, a heavy scalar H and pseudo-scalar A, contribute to the tttt final state and have the same mass mH=mA.

Observed (red line) and expected (black dashed line) exclusion regions at 95% CL in the tan(beta) versus mass plane assuming that only the scalar H contributes to the tttt final state.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 500 GeV.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 600 GeV.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 700 GeV.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 800 GeV.

Data and post-fit background comparison obtained with the background-only fit to the BSM SR for the BSM pBDT distribution used for mH = 900 GeV.

Observed (red line) and expected (black dashed line) exclusion regions at 95% CL in the tan(beta) versus mass plane assuming that only the pseudo-scalar A contributes to the tttt final state.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A×ε), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria of the BSM SR, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the tt̄H(→ tt̄ ) process in a type-II 2HDM for tanβ = 1 for the different heavy Higgs mass hypotheses.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in an $(X,T)$ doublet (50% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 50% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in a $T$ singlet (50% $T\rightarrow Wb$, 25% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 25% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B for 100% $B\rightarrow Zb$.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a $(B,Y)$ doublet (50% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 50% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a B singlet (50% $B\rightarrow Wt$, 25% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 25% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ double-tag 1 signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ $V$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ no-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $VV$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $H$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Summary of observed and predicted yields in the control regions and signal region categories. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region and signal region categories. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Due to correlations, the total background uncertainty is not necessarily equal to the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties of the individual background processes. The expected yields for benchmark signals with mVLQ=1.2 TeV obtained by using their theoretical cross-sections are also shown with their pre-fit uncertainties. Dashes indicate negligible yields.

Summary of observed and predicted yields in the control regions and signal region categories. The background prediction is shown before the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region and signal region categories. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The expected yields for benchmark signals with mVLQ=1.2 TeV obtained by using their theoretical cross sections are also shown with their pre-fit uncertainties. Dashes indicate negligible yields.

Summary of data and background yields in all analysis categories after the background-only fit. The expected yields for singlet TT̄ signal with mT=1.2 TeV are also shown for comparison. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the total background prediction. The shaded band includes statistical and post-fit systematic uncertainties.

v2 ratio of 10-20%HeAu/0-10%dAu and UC pAu/0-10%dAu

v3 ratio of 10-20%HeAu/0-10%dAu and UC pAu/0-10%dAu

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 315 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 550 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 790 GeV narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 300 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 420 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 320 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 700 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 380 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for SM VHH production, with each Higgs boson decaying to $2b$.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^u\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^u\rightarrow be)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar down-type LQs decaying into top quarks and muons or bottom quarks and neutrinos depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^d\rightarrow t\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar down-type LQs decaying into top quarks and electrons or bottom quarks and neutrinos depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^d\rightarrow te)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{YM}\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{YM}\rightarrow be)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{min}\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{min}\rightarrow be)$.

Cut-flow for the four models containing scalar LQs at a mass of $m_{LQ}=1300$ GeV and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}\rightarrow q_3\ell)=0.5$.

Cut-flow for the four models containing vector LQs at a mass of $m_{LQ}=1300$ GeV and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}\rightarrow q_3\ell)=0.5$.

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$62.4 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$200 GeV

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading photon category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading electron category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading muon category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading small-R jet category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading bjet category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading large-R jet category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading photon category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading electron category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the leading muon category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the inclusive category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Results of applying the BH algorithm to the mass spectra in the inclusive category, using the fitted background estimations from the initial step

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading bjet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading large-R jet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading photon category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading electron category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading muon category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading bjet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading large-R jet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading photon category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading electron category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the leading muon category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the inclusive category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3% as a function of mass in the inclusive category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading bjet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading large-R jet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading photon category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading electron category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading muon category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading bjet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading large-R jet category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading photon category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading electron category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the leading muon category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the inclusive category

Comparison of observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching fraction times acceptance for a Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values as a function of mass in the inclusive category

Acceptance times efficiency in an HVT model as a function of mass in the leading large-R jet category

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times the branching fraction($W^{\prime} \to ZW$) for the HVT signal as functions of mass($m_{ZX}$) in the leading large-R jet category.The full(dashed) red curves correspond to the theoretical predictions of HVT model A(B)

Comparison of the identification efficiencies using standard and merged-ee reconstruction as a function of true PT(Z)

Background rejection factor as a function of signal efficiency. The red curve shows the BDT performance whereas the blue curve corresponds to that of a cut-based analysis relying only on the jet energyfraction deposited in the EM calorimeter

BH p-values of the 100 pseudo-experiments as a function of in the leading small-R jet category for an injected Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3%. The fractions of the pseudo-experiments that have the correctly identified interval and BH p-values below the threshold of 0.01 are indicated. The background is derived by the background-only fit in the full fitting range.

BH p-values of the 100 pseudo-experiments as a function of in the leading small-R jet category for an injected Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width value of 3%. The fractions of the pseudo-experiments that have the correctly identified interval and BH p-values below the threshold of 0.01 are indicated. The background is derived by the background-only fit in the range excluding the BH interval.

Fractions of pseudo-experiments in which the detected BH interval agrees with the injected mass point and the BH p-value is below 0.01 as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category for Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width of 3%.

Fractions of pseudo-experiments in which the detected BH interval agrees with the injected mass point and the BH p-value is below 0.01 as a function of mass in the leading small-R jet category for Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width of 3%.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 3% at the low boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 3% at the high boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 5% at the low boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 5% at the high boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 10% at the low boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Distribution of exclusion upper limits on signal event yields at 95% CL from 1000 pseudo-experiments for Gaussian-shaped signals with relative width values of 10% at the high boundary of the limit-sensitive mass range for the ZX spectrum of the leading small-R jet category. The vertical line corresponds to the expected nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL.

Data yields of the six event categories in the $Z\to e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ decay channels. The merged-$e^+e^-$ events are included in the $e^+e^-$ channel, increasing the event yield, mainly in the leading large-$R$-jet category, by 0.6 %.

A list of mass spectra, event categories and their corresponding fit ranges, functional forms, numbers of free parameters and global $\chi^2$ $p$-values from background-only fits. The fit range values are rounded to the nearest 5 GeV. Here $f_1(x)=p_0\left(\mathrm{e}^{-p_1x}+p_2\mathrm{e}^{-(p_1+p_3)x}+p_4\mathrm{e}^{-(p_1+p_3+p_5)x}+\cdots\right)$ and $f_2(x)=p_0(1-x)^{p_1}x^{p_2+p_3\ln\!x+p_4\ln^2\!x+\cdots}$

A list of mass spectra, event categories and their corresponding signal-sensitive mass ranges. The initial BH $p$-value is obtained by using the background derived from the background-only fit in the full fit range, whereas the new BH $p$-value uses the background derived from the background-only fit in the range excluding the initial BH interval.

A list of mass spectra, event categories, relative width values of Gaussian-shaped signals and limit-sensitive mass ranges and fractions, corresponding to the mass values in the previous column, of pseudo-experiments having exclusion upper limits higher than the nominal exclusion limit at 95% CL

Cutflow of HVT model $A$ signals ($W^\prime \to ZW \to \ell\ell qq$) with $m_{W^\prime} = 1$ TeV and $m_{W^\prime} = 4$ TeV based on MC simulations.

Acceptance times efficiency ($\mathcal{A} \times \epsilon$) values in % in the dominant event category for $p^Z_{\mathrm{T}} > 100$ GeV in the $Z \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decay channel.