The $m_{lJ}$ distribution in the boosted DY control region, muon channel.

The $m_{lljj}$ distribution in the resolved flavor control region.

The $m_{lJ}$ distribution in the boosted flavor control region, with electron jet.

The $m_{lJ}$ distribution in the boosted flavor control region, with muon jet

The $m_{lljj}$ distribution in the resolved signal region, electron channel.

The $m_{lljj}$ distribution in the resolved signal region, muon channel.

The $m_{lJ}$ distribution in the boosted signal region, electron channel.

The $m_{lJ}$ distribution in the boosted signal region, muon channel.

The expected and observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ for $m_{N} = m_{W_{R}}/2$ GeV in the electron channel. The red solid lines represent the values expected from the theory.

The expected and observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ for $m_{N} = m_{W_{R}}/2$ GeV in the muon channel. The red solid lines represent the values expected from the theory.

The expected and observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ for $m_{N} = 200$ GeV in the electron channel. The red solid lines represent the values expected from the theory.

The expected and observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ for $m_{N} = 200$ GeV in the muon channel. The red solid lines represent the values expected from the theory.

The observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ divided by the theory cross sections in the electron channel. The observed exclusions are shown for the resolved (solid green), boosted (solid blue), and combined (solid black) channels, along with the expected exclusion for the combined result (dotted black). The dash-dotted lines represent the one standard deviation of the expected exclusion. The observed exclusions from the previous search performed by the CMS Collaboration (arXiv:1803.11116) is also shown in magenta.

The observed $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production cross section times the branching fraction $\sigma (\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow W_{R}) \mathcal{B}(W_{R} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}'})$ divided by the theory cross sections in the muon channel. The observed exclusions are shown for the resolved (solid green), boosted (solid blue), and combined (solid black) channels, along with the expected exclusion for the combined result (dotted black). The dash-dotted lines represent the one standard deviation of the expected exclusion. The observed exclusions from the previous search performed by the CMS Collaboration (arXiv:1803.11116) is also shown in magenta.

Relative uncertainties in the total yields of the signal and background predictions.

Covariance matrix for all bins used in the background-only fit of the electron channel of this analysis. There are 243 bins in total, 81 for every data-taking year. For every year, each region has nine bins and the bins are grouped by rergion in the following order: ee boosted DY CR, #mu-jet flavor CR, ee resolved DY CR, resolved flavor CR, ee boosted SR, ee resolved SR, #mu#mu boosted DY CR, e-jet flavor CR, and #mu#mu resolved DY CR.

Covariance matrix for all bins used in the background-only fit of the muon channel of this analysis. There are 243 bins in total, 81 for every data-taking year. For every year, each region has nine bins and the bins are grouped by rergion in the following order: ee boosted DY CR, #mu-jet flavor CR, ee resolved DY CR, #mu#mu boosted DY CR, e-jet flavor CR, $#mu#mu$ resolved DY CR, resolved flavor CR, #mu#mu boosted SR, and the #mu#mu resolved SR.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016 data-taking period, corresponding to $35.9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dielectron channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $m_{W_{R}} = 0.3$, 0.4, and 0.5 TeV and $m_{N} = 0.2$ TeV signal hypotheses for the boosted , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (3.0,1.4)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (4.0,2.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for the $(m_{W_{R}},m_{N}) = (5.0,3.0)$ TeV signal hypothesis for the resolved , dimuon channel.The requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements.

Cross sections calculated to next-to-leading (NLO) accuracy

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

SR1 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP linear ZZ) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the boosted untagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the boosted tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV.

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved untagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(G -> ZZ) as a function of the resonance mass, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The electron and muon channels and the various categories used in the analysis are combined. The inner green band and the outer yellow band represent the 68 and 95% coverage of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(W' -> ZW) as a function of the resonance mass, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The electron and muon channels and the various categories used in the analysis are combined. The inner green band and the outer yellow band represent the 68 and 95% coverage of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the product of the ALP coupling to gluons and the coupling to Z bosons as a function of the mass scale $f_a$ for ALP masses smaller than 100 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the product of the ALP coupling to gluons and the chiral $a_\widetilde{2D}$ coupling as a function of the mass scale $f_a$ for ALP masses smaller than 100 GeV.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}$ CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the SS CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} < 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the simplified higgsino model. The simplified model includes both neutralino pair and neutralino-chargino production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the pMSSM higgsino model. The pMSSM one includes all possible production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bW simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

Measured DPS effective cross section

pp -> J/psi J/psi J/psi X cross section

$pp \rightarrow J/\psi J/\psi J/\psi X~$ fiducial cross section

Distribution of the three leading leptons flavour in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Efficiency, acceptance, and proportion of events with leptonic tau decays in WZ production

WZ fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ total cross section extrapolated from the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

W$^{+}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

W$^{-}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ charge asymmetry ratio measured on each of the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the W polarization fit

Distribution of the cosine of the Z polarization angle in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the Z polarization fit

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^W$-$f_{L}^W-f_R^W$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^Z$-$f_{L}^Z-f_R^Z$ plane

Distribution of the invariant mass of the WZ system in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering both the SM interferences and purely BSM (order $\Lambda^{-2}$ and $\Lambda^{-4}$) terms

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{w}$-$c_{b}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering only the SM-EFT interference (order $\Lambda^{-2}$) terms

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{b}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the Z boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the leading jet

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the jet multiplicity

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the invariant mass of the WZ system

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the invariant mass of the WZ system

Response matrix for the invariant mass of the WZ system obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Response matrix for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Response matrix for the cosine of the Z polarization angle obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin, distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY and distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

The DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample compared to predictions from the pure DPS sample in PYTHIA 8 (P8) and KATIE (KT). The distributions are normalized to unity.

The results of the template fit for the POWHEG (PW) NLO 2 -> 2 model without the hard MPI removed. As the DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample carries a statistical and systematic uncertainty, so does the total fitted sample.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (Drell-Yan) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a Radion produced by vector boson fusion and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a Z' produced by quark annihilation and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a Z' produced by vector boson fusion and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a W' produced by quark annihilation and decaying to WZ, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a W' produced by vector boson fusion and decaying to WZ, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a W' produced by quark annihilation and decaying to WH, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.