Numerical results of $b \bar{b}$- and $c \bar{c}$-dijet cross-sections, $c \bar{c}$/$b \bar{b}$ dijet cross-section ratios and their total uncertainties as a function of the leading jet $p_T$.

Numerical results of $b \bar{b}$- and $c \bar{c}$-dijet cross-sections, $c\bar{c}$/$b \bar{b}$ dijet cross-section ratios and their total uncertainties as a function of $m_{jj}$ (dijet invariant mass).

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet eta intervals of the $b \bar{b}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet eta intervals of the $c \bar{c}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet $\eta$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$ (horizontal) and $c \bar{c}$ (vertical) differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $\Delta y^*$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $\Delta y^*$ intervals of the $c \bar{c}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $\Delta y^*$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$ (horizontal) and $c \bar{c}$ (vertical) differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is nb$^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet $p_T$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is (nb GeV$/c)^2$ and the $p_T$ intervals are given in GeV$/c$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet $p_T$ intervals of the $c \bar{c}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is (nb GeV$/c)^2$ and the $p_T$ intervals are given in GeV$/$c .

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the leading jet $p_T$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$ (horizontal) and $c \bar{c}$ (vertical) differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is (nb GeV$/c)^2$ and the $p_T$ intervals are given in GeV$/c$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $m_{jj}$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is (nb GeV$/c^2)^2$ and the mass intervals are given in GeV$/c^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $m_{jj}$ intervals of the $c \bar{c}$-dijet differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is (nb GeV$/c^2)^2$ and the mass intervals are given in GeV$/c^2$.

Covariance matrix, corresponding to the total uncertainties, obtained between the $m_{jj}$ intervals of the $b \bar{b}$ (horizontal) and $c \bar{c}$ (vertical) differential cross sections. The unit of all the elements of the matrix is $($nb GeV$/c^2)^2$ and the mass intervals are given in GeV$/c^2$.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E_T^miss bin and data overlaid with the maximum likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the combined signal and control region fit. The hatched uncertainty band shown includes simulation statistics uncertainties, experimental systematic uncertainties, and V+jets theory modelling systematic uncertainties. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.

Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets.

Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m^TAR>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR_cone=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W^±W^∓) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the leptoquark mass as a function of the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$t\mu$).

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the ggF-MVA-low category.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the VBF-MVA-enriched category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched mumuvv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched mumuvv category.

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the ggF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the VBF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 1% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 5% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 10% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 15% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for a KK graviton produced with k/M_{PI} = 1

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $\Delta v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Measured fiducial cross sections for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes, and for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes for the helicity eigenstates defined in the parton-parton center-of-mass frame. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction for $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} \rightarrow \ell \nu \ell' \nu$. The fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The theoretical predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}\alpha^6)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^7)$ corrections to the \MGvATNLO LO cross sections, as described in arXiv:2009.09429, are also shown. The theoretical uncertainties include statistical, PDF, and LO scale uncertainties.

Charged-particle pseudorapidity density for central multiplicity classes as a function of $\eta$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Statistical errors are generally insignificant.

Charged-particle pseudorapidity density for central multiplicity classes as a function of $\eta$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Statistical errors are generally insignificant.

Charged-particle pseudorapidity density for central multiplicity classes as a function of $\eta$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Statistical errors are generally insignificant.