RpA of charged hadrons as a function of pT at forward rapidity in p+Al various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of pT at backward rapidity in p+Al various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of eta at forward and backward rapidity in p+Al various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of pT at forward rapidity in p+Au various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of pT at backward rapidity in p+Au various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of eta at forward and backward rapidity in p+Au various centrality bins.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of Npart at forward and backward rapidity in p+Al collisions.

RpA of charged hadrons as a function of Npart at forward and backward rapidity in p+Au collisions.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed and expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the gluino pair production cross section for a gluino GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ GeV. The one (two) standard deviation variation in the expected limit is shown in the inner green (outer yellow) band. The blue solid line shows the observed limit obtained by the CMS displaced jet search

The distribution (normalized to unity) of number of ECAL cells hit in the jet for jets in a background enriched data sample (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets satisfying signal region requirements (except those on $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ and $N^{\mathrm{cell}}_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{HEF}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $\mathrm{HEF}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $p_\mathrm{T}tf$ for a data sample enriched in main bunch backgrounds (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $|t_{\mathrm{jet}}| < 3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} >20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $p_\mathrm{T}tf$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} < 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$).

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset with no cleaning selection applied (a) and after all jet cleaning selections are applied (b) in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} > 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds. The cleaning selections are shown to reduce the backgrounds by many orders of magnitude.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} < 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds (all other jet cleaning selections are applied). Clear contributions from jets from satellite bunch collisions can be seen peaked around -5, 5 and 10 ns.

Contribution to the delayed time of jets from the $\beta$ of the gluino is plotted against the delay contribution from the difference (assuming straight line paths) between the path taken by the gluino and the particle forming the jet from the path length for a particle travelling directly to the same position on the ECAL barrel for gluino $c\tau_{0} = 10$ m and mass of 1000 Gev (top) and 3000 GeV (bottom). The dominant contribution is shown to be the gluino $\beta$.

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=1000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=3000$ and various proper decay lengths

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The ratio of the production cross sections of inclusive $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ to prompt $D^{0}$ versus $p_{T}$ from pp collisions. The $20\%$ normalization uncertainty in pp collisions is not included in the statistical and systematic uncertainties for each data point.

The ratio of the production cross sections of inclusive $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ to prompt $D^{0}$ versus $p_{T}$ from $0-100\%$ centrality PbPb collisions. The $31\%$ normalization uncertainty in PbPb collisions, is not included in the statistical and systematic uncertainties for each data point.

The $\gamma_{SS}$ correlators in du+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The correlation difference variable $\Delta \gamma = \gamma_{OS}-\gamma_{SS}$ in p+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The correlation difference variable $\Delta \gamma = \gamma_{OS}-\gamma_{SS}$ in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The measured two-particle cumulant $v_2\{2\}$ in p+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The measured two-particle cumulant $v_2\{2\}$ in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The scaled observable $\Delta{\gamma}_{scaled} = \Delta{\gamma} \times dN_{ch}/d\eta/v_{2}$ in p+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The scaled observable $\Delta{\gamma}_{scaled} = \Delta{\gamma} \times dN_{ch}/d\eta/v_{2}$ in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC as a function of multiplicity.

The upper panel shows the jet yield vs detector jet pT in data and simulation for each of the three trigger categories. The lower three panels show the relative differences between data and simulation (JP1)

The upper panel shows the jet yield vs detector jet pT in data and simulation for each of the three trigger categories. The lower three panels show the relative differences between data and simulation (JP2)

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum fraction,z, for two typical detector jet pT bins

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum fraction,z, for two typical detector jet pT bins

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum transverse to the thrust axis,jT, for two typical detector jet pT bins (data, 8GeV/c)

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum transverse to the thrust axis,jT, for two typical detector jet pT bins (simulation, 8GeV/c)

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum transverse to the thrust axis,jT, for two typical detector jet pT bins (data, 34.4GeV/c)

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the jets as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum transverse to the thrust axis,jT, for two typical detector jet pT bins (simulation, 34.4GeV/c)

The upper panel shows the electromagnetic fraction distribution for jets in a low-pT bin. The lower panel shows the electromagnetic fraction distributions in a higher pT bin for each of the three jet categories (JP0, 34.4GeV/c)

The upper panel shows the electromagnetic fraction distribution for jets in a low-pT bin. The lower panel shows the electromagnetic fraction distributions in a higher pT bin for each of the three jet categories

Dijet yield vs invariant mass as measured at the detector level. (JP0)

Dijet yield vs invariant mass as measured at the detector level. (JP1)

Dijet yield vs invariant mass as measured at the detector level. (JP2)

Dijet opening angle Delta phi distribution

Dijet opening angle Delta eta distribution

Distributions of the charged hadrons within the offaxis cones as a function of hadron pT

The ratio of simulation to data for pT < 2 GeV/c

the mean underlying event correction to the jet transverse momentum, as a function of detector jet pT

the mean underlying event correction to the dijet mass, as a function of detector dijet invariant mass, from data

the mean underlying event correction to the dijet mass, as a function of detector dijet invariant mass, from simulation

the observed longitudinal double-spin asymmetry of the underlying event contributions, as a function of detector jet pT

the sampled gluon x distributions, weighted by the partonic asymmetry (triggered detector jets, 8.0 GeV/c)

the sampled gluon x distributions, weighted by the partonic asymmetry (triggered detector jets, 34.4 GeV/c)

the sampled gluon x distributions, weighted by the partonic asymmetry (all parton jets, 8.0 GeV/c)

the sampled gluon x distributions, weighted by the partonic asymmetry (all parton jets, 34.4 GeV/c)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties,as function of pT compared to the theoretical predictions (Run12)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties,as function of pT compared to the theoretical predictions (DSSV14)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties,as function of pT compared to the theoretical predictions (NNPDFpol.1)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties,as function of pT compared to the theoretical predictions (NNPDFpol.1 -rep)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties, as function of xT compared to the theoretical predictions (Run12)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties, as function of xT compared to the theoretical predictions (Run9)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties, as function of xT compared to the theoretical predictions (DSSV14)

the inclusive jet asymmetries and systematic uncertainties, as function of xT compared to the theoretical predictions (NNPDFpol1.1)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,A,x1)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,A,x2)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,B,x1)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,B,x2)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,C,x1)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,C,x2)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,D,x1)

Leading order extractions from the embedding sample of the x1 and x2 distributions in dijet events for topological bins A-D (a,D,x2)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,A,DSSV14)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,B,DSSV14)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,C,DSSV14)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,D,DSSV14)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,A,NNPDF11)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,B,NNPDF11)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,C,NNPDF11)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,D,NNPDF11)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,A,data)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,B,data)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,C,data)

Dijet asymmetries for the same topological bins in 510 GeV pp collisions (b,D,data)

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section of a Z' resonance decaying to a pair of SM bosons.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section of a V' resonance decaying to a pair of SM bosons.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section of a V' resonance decaying to a pair of SM bosons.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section of a graviton decaying to a pair of SM bosons.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the Z' cross section and the Z' -> WW branching fraction as a function of the Z' resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the bulk graviton cross section and the G -> WW branching fraction as a function of the G resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction as a function of the W' resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the bulk graviton cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction as a function of the G resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' cross section and the W' -> WH branching fraction as a function of the W' resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the Z' cross section and the Z' -> ZH branching fraction as a function of the Z' resonance mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the bulk graviton cross section and the G -> HH branching fraction as a function of the G resonance mass.

The observed $m_{T}$ and $m_{jj}$ distributions in the ejj (upper left), $\mu$~jj (upper right), $\tau_{h}$~jj (lower left), and $0\ell$~jj (lower right) signal regions compared with the post-fit SM background yields from the fit described in the text. The pre-fit background yields and shapes are determined using data-driven methods for the major backgrounds, and based on simulation for the smaller backgrounds. Expected signal distributions are overlaid. The last bin in the $m_{T}$ distributions of the $1\ell$~jj channels include all events with $m_{T} > 210$~GeV. The last bin of the $m_{jj}$ distributions of the $0\ell$~jj channel include all events with $m_{jj} > 3800$~GeV.

The observed $m_{T}$ and $m_{jj}$ distributions in the ejj (upper left), $\mu$~jj (upper right), $\tau_{h}$~jj (lower left), and $0\ell$~jj (lower right) signal regions compared with the post-fit SM background yields from the fit described in the text. The pre-fit background yields and shapes are determined using data-driven methods for the major backgrounds, and based on simulation for the smaller backgrounds. Expected signal distributions are overlaid. The last bin in the $m_{T}$ distributions of the $1\ell$~jj channels include all events with $m_{T} > 210$~GeV. The last bin of the $m_{jj}$ distributions of the $0\ell$~jj channel include all events with $m_{jj} > 3800$~GeV.

Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})=m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$. The results correspond to $\Delta m=1$ GeV (left) and $\Delta m=50$ GeV (right) mass gaps between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the light slepton model. The top row shows the expected limits, and the bottom row shows the observed limits.

Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})=m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$. The results correspond to $\Delta m=1$ GeV (left) and $\Delta m=50$ GeV (right) mass gaps between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the light slepton model. The top row shows the expected limits, and the bottom row shows the observed limits.

Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})=m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$. The results correspond to $\Delta m=1$ GeV (left) and $\Delta m=50$ GeV (right) mass gaps between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the light slepton model. The top row shows the expected limits, and the bottom row shows the observed limits.

Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})=m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$. The results correspond to $\Delta m=1$ GeV (left) and $\Delta m=50$ GeV (right) mass gaps between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the light slepton model. The top row shows the expected limits, and the bottom row shows the observed limits.

(Left) Expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the signal cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$ and $\Delta m$, assuming the light slepton model with slepton mass defined as the average of the \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} and \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} masses, $x_{\widetilde{\ell}}=0.5$. The lower left edge of each bin represents the \{$m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$,$\Delta m$\} combination used to calculate the UL on the signal cross section. For example, the lowest and leftmost bin corresponds to the UL on the signal cross section for the scenario with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}) = 100$ GeV and $\Delta m = 1$ GeV. (Right) Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, for $\Delta m=1$ GeV and $\Delta m=30$ GeV mass gaps between the chargino and the neutralino, assuming the light slepton model.

(Left) Expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the signal cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$ and $\Delta m$, assuming the light slepton model with slepton mass defined as the average of the \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} and \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} masses, $x_{\widetilde{\ell}}=0.5$. The lower left edge of each bin represents the \{$m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$,$\Delta m$\} combination used to calculate the UL on the signal cross section. For example, the lowest and leftmost bin corresponds to the UL on the signal cross section for the scenario with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}) = 100$ GeV and $\Delta m = 1$ GeV. (Right) Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, for $\Delta m=1$ GeV and $\Delta m=30$ GeV mass gaps between the chargino and the neutralino, assuming the light slepton model.

(Left) Expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the signal cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$ and $\Delta m$, assuming the light slepton model with slepton mass defined as the average of the \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} and \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} masses, $x_{\widetilde{\ell}}=0.5$. The lower left edge of each bin represents the \{$m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$,$\Delta m$\} combination used to calculate the UL on the signal cross section. For example, the lowest and leftmost bin corresponds to the UL on the signal cross section for the scenario with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}) = 100$ GeV and $\Delta m = 1$ GeV. (Right) Combined 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, for $\Delta m=1$ GeV and $\Delta m=30$ GeV mass gaps between the chargino and the neutralino, assuming the light slepton model.

(Left) Expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the signal cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$ and $\Delta m$, assuming the \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} and \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} decays proceed via $W^{*}$ and $Z^{*}$. The lower left edge of each bin represents the \{$m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$,$\Delta m$\} combination used to calculate the UL on the signal cross section. For example, the lowest and leftmost bin corresponds to the UL on the signal cross section for the scenario with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}) = 100$ GeV and $\Delta m = 1$ GeV. (Right) The 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, for $\Delta m=1$ GeV and $\Delta m=30$ GeV mass gaps between the chargino and the neutralino, after combining 0 lepton and 1 lepton channels, assuming the \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} and \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} decays proceed via $W^{*}$ and $Z^{*}$.

(Left) Expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the signal cross section as a function of $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$ and $\Delta m$, assuming the \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} and \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} decays proceed via $W^{*}$ and $Z^{*}$. The lower left edge of each bin represents the \{$m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$,$\Delta m$\} combination used to calculate the UL on the signal cross section. For example, the lowest and leftmost bin corresponds to the UL on the signal cross section for the scenario with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}) = 100$ GeV and $\Delta m = 1$ GeV. (Right) The 95% CL UL on the cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, for $\Delta m=1$ GeV and $\Delta m=30$ GeV mass gaps between the chargino and the neutralino, after combining 0 lepton and 1 lepton channels, assuming the \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} and \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} decays proceed via $W^{*}$ and $Z^{*}$.

Example description

Combined 95% CL expected upper limit on the signal cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ for a $\Delta m=1$ GeV mass gap between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the $W Z$ model.

Combined 95% CL expected upper limit on the signal cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ for a $\Delta m=50$ GeV mass gap between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the $W Z$ model.

Combined 95% CL observed upper limit on the signal cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ for a $\Delta m=1$ GeV mass gap between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the $W Z$ model.

Combined 95% CL observed upper limit on the signal cross section as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}=m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ for a $\Delta m=50$ GeV mass gap between the chargino and the lightest neutralino in the $W Z$ model.

Covariance matrix from the combined fit of the $m_{ extrm{jj}}$ and $m_{ extrm{T}}$ distributions in the $0\ell extrm{jj}$ and $1\ell extrm{jj}$ search regions.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at the 95\% CL as a function of $m(\mathrm{H}^{\pm})$ for $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm}) \, \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{Z})$ in the $\mathrm{ZV}$ final state.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at the 95\% CL as a function of $m(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm})$ for $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}) \, \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{W}^{\pm})$ in the $\mathrm{WV}$ final state.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at the 95\% CL for $s_{\mathrm{H}}$ in the Georgi-Machacek model.

$\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{WV}}}$ distribution in the $\mathrm{WV}$ channel. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the background-only fit.

$\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{ZV}}}$ distribution in the $\mathrm{ZV}$ channel. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the background-only fit.

Covariance matrix for all the $\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{WV}}}$ bins used in the $\mathrm{WV}$ channel. The mass distributions are binned as follows: $\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{WV}}}$ = [600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500, 2000, $\infty$] GeV. The covariance matrix from the background-only fit is shown.

Covariance matrix for all the $\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{ZV}}}$ bins used in the $\mathrm{ZV}$ channel. The mass distributions are binned as follows: $\mathrm{m_{\mathrm{ZV}}}$ = [600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500, 2000, $\infty$] GeV. The covariance matrix from the background-only fit is shown.