Parametric models of the signal process for mX=1000GeV, mY=800GeV in their most sensitive SR. The histograms are normalized to unity. The acronym 'dof' stands for the numbers of degrees of freedom of the parametric model. The signal is modeled using a double-sided Crystal Ball (DCB) function defined as: DCB$(x)$ = \[ \begin{cases} N \cdot A_1 \cdot (B_1 - x_s)^{-m_1}, & x_s \leq -\beta_1 \\ N \cdot e^{-\frac{1}{2} x_s^2}, & -\beta_1 < x_s < \beta_2 \\ N \cdot A_2 \cdot (B_2 + x_s)^{-m_2}, & x_s \geq \beta_2 \end{cases} \] with \(x_s = \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}\), and: \[ A_1 = \left( \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} \right)^{m_1} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2}, \quad B_1 = \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} - \beta_1 \] \[ A_2 = \left( \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} \right)^{m_2} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2}, \quad B_2 = \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} - \beta_2 \] The DCB parameters for this signal model are: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.35127, & \mu &= 798.50175, & \sigma &= 7.32360 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.50996, & m_1 &= 5.30414, & \beta_2 &= 1.56253, & m_2 &= 18.3172 \end{aligned} \]

Background-only fit (red line) and signal+background fit (blue line) for the mass point hypothesis of mX=280GeV, mY=90GeV. The red line in the lower panel shows the background-only fit, which is by definition zero, and it is added as a visual aid. The most sensitive SR is shown. The choice of the background functional form is determined by the maximum likelihood fit. Category 0 is the most sensitive signal region. Drell-Yan background component is fitted as \[f_{\text{DY}}(m) = \frac{0.530965}{\sqrt{2\pi} \cdot 2.81859} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{(m - 90.7199)^2}{2 \cdot 2.81859^2} \right)\] In the both the background-only fit and signal plus background fit, the non-resonant component of the pdf is choosing the following function. \[f(m) = \frac{1}{2.6086 \times 10^{-6}} \cdot m^{-3.82346}\] The fitted normalization factor for the function is: 23.5522 Signal fitted r value is 1.21391 in all the category simultaneous fit. The signal is fitted with a double-sided Crystal Ball (DCB) function defined as: DCB$(x)$ = \[ \begin{cases} N \cdot A_1 \cdot (B_1 - x_s)^{-m_1}, & x_s \leq -\beta_1 \\ N \cdot e^{-\frac{1}{2} x_s^2}, & -\beta_1 < x_s < \beta_2 \\ N \cdot A_2 \cdot (B_2 + x_s)^{-m_2}, & x_s \geq \beta_2 \end{cases} \] with \(x_s = \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}\), and: \[ A_1 = \left( \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} \right)^{m_1} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2}, \quad B_1 = \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} - \beta_1 \] \[ A_2 = \left( \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} \right)^{m_2} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2}, \quad B_2 = \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} - \beta_2 \] The DCB parameters are: 2016: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.6422, & \mu &= 89.9423, & \sigma &= 0.8881 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.3471, & m_1 &= 2.7908, & \beta_2 &= 1.4211, & m_2 &= 19.9999 \end{aligned} \] 2017: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.8047, & \mu &= 89.9948, & \sigma &= 1.03024 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.6449, & m_1 &= 1.9425, & \beta_2 &= 1.7434, & m_2 &= 19.9982 \end{aligned} \] 2018: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 1.1200, & \mu &= 90.0211, & \sigma &= 0.9284 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.1778, & m_1 &= 4.4273, & \beta_2 &= 1.5851, & m_2 &= 7.1198 \end{aligned} \] The plot is filled with a bin size of 5.84GeV.

Background-only fit (red line) and signal+background fit (blue line) for the mass point hypothesis of mX=280GeV, mY=90GeV. The red line in the lower panel shows the background-only fit, which is by definition zero, and it is added as a visual aid. The second most sensitive SR is shown. The choice of the background functional form is determined by the maximum likelihood fit. Category 1 is the second most sensitive signal region. Drell-Yan background component is fitted as \[f_{\text{DY}}(m) = \frac{0.532195}{\sqrt{2\pi} \cdot 3.10187} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{(m - 89.7677)^2}{2 \cdot 3.10187^2} \right)\] In the both the background-only fit and signal plus background fit, the non-resonant component of the pdf is choosing the following function. \[f(m) = \frac{1}{14.0606} \cdot \exp\left(-\left(0.1 \cdot \frac{m}{100} + 1.73 \cdot \left(\frac{m}{100}\right)^2\right)\right)\] The fitted normalization factor for the function is: 21.6386 Signal fitted r value is 1.21391 in all the category simultaneous fit. The signal is fitted with a double-sided Crystal Ball (DCB) function defined as: DCB$(x)$ = \[ \begin{cases} N \cdot A_1 \cdot (B_1 - x_s)^{-m_1}, & x_s \leq -\beta_1 \\ N \cdot e^{-\frac{1}{2} x_s^2}, & -\beta_1 < x_s < \beta_2 \\ N \cdot A_2 \cdot (B_2 + x_s)^{-m_2}, & x_s \geq \beta_2 \end{cases} \] with \(x_s = \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}\), and: \[ A_1 = \left( \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} \right)^{m_1} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2}, \quad B_1 = \frac{m_1}{\beta_1} - \beta_1 \] \[ A_2 = \left( \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} \right)^{m_2} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2}, \quad B_2 = \frac{m_2}{\beta_2} - \beta_2 \] The DCB parameters are: 2016: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.3784, & \mu &= 89.8969, & \sigma &= 0.9189 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.1920, & m_1 &= 3.7178, & \beta_2 &= 1.3318, & m_2 &= 10.9787 \end{aligned} \] 2017: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.4914, & \mu &= 89.8859, & \sigma &= 1.0728 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.3515, & m_1 &= 3.2846, & \beta_2 &= 1.4371, & m_2 &= 20.0000 \end{aligned} \] 2018: \[ \begin{aligned} N &= 0.6766, & \mu &= 89.9327, & \sigma &= 1.1213 \\ \beta_1 &= 1.9188, & m_1 &= 1.5353, & \beta_2 &= 1.9907, & m_2 &= 12.4664 \end{aligned} \] The plot is filled with a bin size of 5.84GeV.

Observed(expected) upper limits on the $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for the X to $Y(\gamma\gamma)H(bb)$ signal with the different mass hypotheses are shown with solid(dashed) lines. The green and the yellow bands define the $\pm 68\%$ and $\pm 95\%$ uncertainty bands, respectively. For visualization purposes, the upper limit for mass points with different $m_X$ has been multiplied with a constant factor quoted on the right of each band. Mass points with $m_X$ ranging from 600 to 1000GeV are shown.

Observed(expected) upper limits on the $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for the X 5p $Y(\gamma\gamma)H(bb)$ signal with the different mass hypotheses are shown with solid(dashed) lines. The green and the yellow bands define the $\pm 68\%$ and $\pm 95\%$ uncertainty bands, respectively. For visualization purposes, the upper limit for mass points with different $m_X$ has been multiplied with a constant factor quoted on the right of each band. Mass points with $m_X$ ranging from 240 to 550GeV are shown.

Observed(expected) upper limits on the $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for the X to $Y(\gamma\gamma)H(bb)$ signal with the different $m_Y$ hypotheses are shown with solid(dashed) lines. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing $68\%$ and $95\%$, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. This plot shows the set of mass points with the lowest $m_X = 240GeV$

Observed(expected) upper limits on the $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for the X to $Y(\gamma\gamma)H(bb)$ signal with the different $m_Y$ hypotheses are shown with solid(dashed) lines. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing $68\%$ and $95\%$, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. This plot shows the set of mass points with the highest $m_{X} = 1000GeV$

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{Z}^\prime+X)\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{Z}^\prime\rightarrow e\mu)$ as a function of the Z′ mass (110–500 GeV), at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with 138 fb$^{-1}$.

The 2D distribution of the $\Delta\Phi$ (cluster, $\mu_{trigger}$) vs the number of hits in clusters, in events from the out-of-time region.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

The estimated BR limits for a range of generator parameters: $0.3 < m_{LLP}$ < 3.0 GeV and 0 < $c\tau$ < 10000 mm.

The contour of the 2D distribution which includes the generation parameter values corresponding to the BR of 0.01.

The contour of the 2D distribution which includes the generation parameter values corresponding to the BR of 0.001.

Signal cut-flow efficiencies for the hadronic shower decay mode

Signal cut-flow efficiencies for the electromagnetic shower decay mode

The measured differences of mass differences between vector and ground states.

The measured ratios of mass differences between vector and ground states.

Predictions of a leading order (LO) QCD simulation, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The number of events are examined within bins of the four-jet mass and the ratio $\alpha$, which is the average dijet mass divided by the four-jet mass.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

Signal differential distributions as a function of four-jet mass for $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, diquark masses of 2, 5, 8.6 TeV and various widths, for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The integral of each distribution has been normalized to unity.

The product of acceptance, $A$, and efficiency, $\varepsilon$, of a resonant signal with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25 vs. the diquark mass for various diquark widths, and for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of generated events passing the kinematic selection criteria, while the efficiency is the fraction of signal events satisfying $m_{\mathrm{4j}} > 1.6$ TeV. We also show the signal acceptance alone in the curves where $\varepsilon = 1$.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The inclusive four-jet mass distribution in data for $\alpha$ > 0.10, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-5p, PowExp-5p and ModDijet-5p), each with five free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 1.5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.25, and various widths of Y superimposed.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.29, and various widths of Y superimposed.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 2.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 0.5$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 5.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 1.25$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 8.6$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 2.15$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

Distributions of discriminant for the $2_{m}^{+}$ and $0^{-}$ models.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement) to number of ungroomed jets (without any WTA flavour requirement). $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data, without any WTA flavour requirement. Normalization is set to unity. $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (groomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (groomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Groomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet,gr}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the soft drop tagging fraction, given by the number of groomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour) to number of ungroomed jets (tagged with WTA flavour). $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV, soft drop $z_{\textrm{cut}}=0.1, \beta=0$.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to the WTA tagging fraction, given by the number of (ungroomed) jets tagged with WTA flavour to number of (ungroomed) jets without WTA flavour tagging. $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $10 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 12$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $12 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 15$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $15 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 20$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $20 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 30$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $30 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 50$ GeV.

Ungroomed $B^\pm$-tagged jet invariant mass $m_{\textrm{jet}}/p_{\textrm{T,jet}}$ for $R=0.5$ jets reconstructed in pp data tagged with WTA flavour. Normalization is set to unity. $50 < p_{\textrm{T,jet}} < 100$ GeV.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|y_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\cos(\theta^{*})$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of the number of jets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Measured value of the charge asymmetry, $A_{C}$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the absolute difference of the absolute lepton rapidities $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the invariant mass of the dilepton system $m_{e\mu}$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Measured value of the asymmetry in the CP-odd observable $O_{z}$, $A_{CP}$.

The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.