Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. 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. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^β=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

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

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

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

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01 and m_χ=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* RH hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* VL hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+b hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+t hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Dijet signal efficiencies as a function of the signal mass and lifetime for events satisfying all event and vertex requirements, with corrections based on systematic differences in the vertex reconstruction efficiency between data and simulation.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ for $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data and three simulated multijet signal samples each with a mass of 1600 GeV. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for the samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The last bin includes the overflow events. This bin includes one event in data with a vertex with large $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ that appears to arise from tracks originating from separate pp interaction vertices, consistent with background.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 3-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 4-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using $\geq$5-track one-vertex event information. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Predicted yields for the background-only normalized template, predicted yields for three simulated multijet signals each with a mass of 1600 GeV, and the observed yield in each $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$ bin. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The uncertainties in the signal yields and the systematic uncertainties in the background prediction reflect the systematic uncertainties given in the text.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals. For $m$ = 2400 GeV, the expected neutralino cross section is $\approx 8\times 10^{-5}$ fb and is not shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Data-to-simulation efficiency correction factors, shown for multijet and dijet signal topologies in several ranges of $c\tau$. Note that these correction factors account for the two long-lived particles in the simulated events, and are therefore the total correction factors used to scale event yields rather than the correction factors one would apply to individual vertices.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 3-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track and 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 4-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using one-vertex event information. No $\geq$5-track two-vertex data events pass the selection.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the expected SM backgrounds in the 2l+jets channel for SR2-int/high, without the final ETmiss requirement applied. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the expected SM backgrounds in the 2l+jets channel for SR2-low, without the final ETmiss requirement applied. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-slep-a. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-slep-b. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of the third leading lepton pT in SR3-slep-c,d,e. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-WZ-0Ja,b,c. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-WZ-1Ja. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-WZ-1Jb. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Distributions of ETmiss for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the 3l channel for SR3-WZ-1Jc. Two signal points are added for comparison.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-pair production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-pair production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for direct slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for direct slepton production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with slepton-mediated decays.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with slepton-mediated decays.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays.

The mT2 distributions for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the exclusive SF signal regions of the 2l+0jets channel in the regions 111 < mll < 150 GeV (corresponding to SR2-SF-a,b,c,d). Two signal points are added for comparison.

The mT2 distributions for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the exclusive SF signal regions of the 2l+0jets channel in the regions 150 < mll < 200 GeV (corresponding to SR2-SF-e,f,g,h). Two signal points are added for comparison.

The mT2 distributions for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the exclusive SF signal regions of the 2l+0jets channel in the regions 200 < mll < 300 GeV (corresponding to SR2-SF-i,j,k,l). Two signal points are added for comparison.

The mT2 distributions for data and the estimated SM backgrounds in the exclusive SF signal regions of the 2l+0jets channel in the regions mll > 300 GeV (corresponding to SR2-SF-m). Two signal points are added for comparison.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-SFloose for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$ .

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-SFloose for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-SFtight for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-SFtight for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-DF100 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-DF100 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-DF150 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-DF150 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-DF200 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-DF200 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1C1 production in SR2-DF300 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1C1 production in SR2-DF300 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for direct Slepton production in SR2-SF-Loose for the process P P -> $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \tilde{\ell}^\mp$ -> $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for direct Slepton production in SR2-SF-Loose for the process P P -> $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \tilde{\ell}^\mp$ -> $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for direct Slepton production in SR2-SF-Tight for the process P P -> $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \tilde{\ell}^\mp$ -> $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for direct Slepton production in SR2-SF-Tight for the process P P -> $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \tilde{\ell}^\mp$ -> $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1N2 production in SR2-low for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1N2 production in SR2-low for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1N2 production in SR2-int for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1N2 production in SR2-int for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for C1N2 production in SR2-high for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for C1N2 production in SR2-high for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->2j) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Slep production in SR3-slepa for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Slep production in SR3-slepa for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Slep production in SR3-slepb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Slep production in SR3-slepb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Slep production in SR3-slepc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Slep production in SR3-slepc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Slep production in SR3-slepd for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Slep production in SR3-slepd for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Slep production in SR3-slepe for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Slep production in SR3-slepe for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Ja for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Ja for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Jb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Jb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Jc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-0Jc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Ja for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Ja for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Jb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Jb for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Jc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for WZ production in SR3-WZ-1Jc for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal regions contributing to the observed exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays in the 2l+jets channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays in the 2l+jets channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays in the 3l channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays in the 2l+jets channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for left-handed slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for left-handed slepton production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for right-handed slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for right-handed slepton production.

95% upper limit on production cross-section for chargino-pair production.

95% upper limit on production cross-section for direct slepton production.

95% upper limit on production cross-section for chargino-neutralino production with slepton-mediated decays.

95% upper limit on production cross-section for chargino-neutralino production with W/Z-mediated decays

<b>Cutflow 1</b> Event counts for a signal point in SR2-SF-loose for the process P P -> $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \tilde{\ell}^\mp$ -> $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

<b>Cutflow 2</b> Event counts for a signal point in SR2-SF-loose and SR2-DF-100 for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

<b>Cutflow 3</b> Event counts for two signal points in SR2-int for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

<b>Cutflow 4</b> Event counts for two signal points in SR2-low for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_1^\mp$ -> 2x $\ell \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

<b>Cutflow 5</b> Event counts for two signal points in SR3-WZ-0Ja/b/c and SR3-WZ-1Ja/b/c for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $W$(->l $\nu$) $Z$(->2l) $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

<b>Cutflow 6</b> Event counts for two signal points in SR3-slepa-e for the process P P -> $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ -> $\tilde{\ell}_L \tilde{\ell}_L l (\tilde{\nu}\nu), l \tilde{\nu} \tilde{\ell}_L (\tilde{\nu}\nu)$ -> $l \nu \widetilde{\chi}_1^0 l l (\nu \nu) \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of COS(THETA*). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of DELTAYRAP(2GAMMA). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of MULT(JET,PT>30 GEV). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of MULT(JET,PT>50 GEV). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(JET1). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(JET2). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of HT. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of YRAP(JET1). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of YRAP(JET2). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of M(2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of DELTAYRAP(2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of ABSDPHI(2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of DPHI(2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(2GAMMA2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of DPHI(2GAMMA,2JET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of TAUJET. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of SUM(TAUJET). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(2GAMMA) [NJET=0,PT>30 GEV]. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(2GAMMA) [NJET=1,PT>30 GEV]. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(2GAMMA) [NJET=2,PT>30 GEV]. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of PT(2GAMMA) [NJET>=3,PT>30 GEV]. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

The measured cross sections or cross section limits of the diphoton, VBF-enhanced, Nlepton $\geq$ 1, high $E_{T}^{miss}$, and ttH-enhanced fiducial regions are shown.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of diphoton transverse momentum in bins of ABS(COS(THETA*)). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources.

Non-perturbative correction factors in percent accounting for the impact of hadronisation and the underlying event activity for all measured variables and fiducial regions. Regions of phase space where no reliable estimate could be obtained are listed as 100 without uncertainties. Uncertainties are evaluated by deriving these factors using different generators and tunes as described in the text. No factor are given for the Nlepton $\geq$ 1 and High-$E_{T}^{miss}$ fiducial regions as the gluon fusion contamination in both is negligible.

Isolation efficiencies in percent for gluon fusion $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ for each fiducial region/variable bin measured in this analysis. The isolation efficiency is defined as the probability for both photons to fulfil the isolation criteria (as described in Section 9.1) for events that pass the diphoton kinematic criteria. Regions of phase space where no reliable estimate could be obtained are listed as 100 without uncertainties. Uncertainties are assigned in the same way as for the non-perturbative correction factors: by varying the fragmentation and underlying event modelling. These factors can be multiplied by the kinematic acceptance factors (see Table 29) to extrapolate an inclusive gluon fusion Higgs prediction to the fiducial volume used in this analysis. No factors for the Nlepton $\geq$ 1 and High $E_{T}^{miss}$ fiducial regions are provided as the gluon fusion contamination is negligible.

Combined non-perturbative (Table 27) and particle-level isolation correction factors (Table 28) in percent accounting for the impact of hadronisation and the underlying event activity for all measured variables and fiducial regions. Regions of phase space where no reliable estimate could be obtained are listed as 100 without uncertainties. The uncertainties on the combined values properly take into account the correlations between both multiplicative factors.

Diphoton kinematic acceptances in percent for gluon-gluon fusion for the diphoton fiducial region and all differential variable bins studied in this paper, defined as the probability to fulfill the diphoton kinematic criteria: $p_{T}$/$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 0.35 (0.25) for the leading (subleading) photon and $|\eta_{\gamma\gamma}|$ < 2.37. The factors are evaluated using the Powheg NNLOPSevent generator. Uncertainties are taken from PDF variations. QCD scale variations have a negligible impact on these factors. The range of each bin is given in Table 26.

observed statistical correlations between pTyy, Njets, mjj, |DeltaPhijj| and pTj1

ggH default MC + XH predictions

XH ( = VBF + VH + ttH + bbH ) MC predictions

Best-fit values and uncertainties of the production-mode cross sections times branching ratio.

Best-fit values and uncertainties of the simplified template cross sections times branching ratio.

Observed correlations between the measured simplified template cross sections, including both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Best-fit values and uncertainties of the simplified template cross sections times branching ratio.

Observed correlations between the measured simplified template cross sections, including both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed correlations between the measured simplified template cross sections, including both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for the ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,100) GeV and ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,800) GeV models. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for the ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,100) GeV and ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,800) GeV models. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Comparisons between expected and observed content of the validation and signal regions for the photon+jets analysis. The uncertainties in the expected numbers of events are the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. The lower panel shows the pull (difference between observed and expected event counts normalized by the uncertainty) for each region.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for points in the $m_{\tilde{g}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ parameter space of the GGM model relevant to the photon+jets analysis (mass values in GeV). The value of the gluino mass arises from the choice $M_{3}$ = 1900 GeV. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ mass values of 1868, 1920, 442 and 652 GeV arise from the choices $\mu$ = 1810, 1868, 400 and 600 GeV, respectively, combined with the constraint that the branching fraction of $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ $\to \gamma \tilde{G}$ be 50%. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$, the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement is 200 GeV rather than 300 GeV. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of statistical uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for points in the $m_{\tilde{g}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ parameter space of the GGM model relevant to the photon+jets analysis (mass values in GeV). The value of the gluino mass arises from the choice $M_{3}$ = 1900 GeV. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ mass values of 1868, 1920, 442 and 652 GeV arise from the choices $\mu$ = 1810, 1868, 400 and 600 GeV, respectively, combined with the constraint that the branching fraction of $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \to \gamma \tilde{G}$ be 50%. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$, the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement is 200 GeV rather than 300 GeV. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of statistical uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Expected exclusion limits in the gluino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 1600$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 1600$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits in the gluino--bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 1600$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 1600$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limit in the squark-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 900$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 900$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limit in the squark--bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 900$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 900$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limit in the wino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 400$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ < 400$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limit in the wino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 400$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ < 400$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis.

Observed exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis.

Distribution of the transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}} (\ell\gamma\gamma)$ of events in the $\ell\gamma\gamma$ control region (except without a cut on $p_{\mathrm{T}} (\ell\gamma\gamma)$). Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, including $W(\to\ell\nu) + \gamma\gamma$ production itself. The displayed uncertainties are a combination of those from all SM sources except $W(\to\ell\nu) + \gamma\gamma$ production, and include statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for diphoton events in a validation region defined by a requirement of $H_{\mathrm{T}} > 1750$ GeV. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, as well as their combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ for diphoton events in a validation region defined by requirement of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 100$ GeV. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, as well as their combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ for events satisfying all requirements $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ save the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement itself. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, and their combined statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ for events satisfying all requirements $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ save the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement itself. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, and their combined statistical uncertainties.

Derived exclusion limits for the gluino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the gluino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the squark-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the squark-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the wino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the wino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the gluino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the gluino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where SL and SH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the squark-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the squark-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where SL and SH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the wino--bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the wino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where WL and WH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where L and H mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$, respectively.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ for the signal models of the gluino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ for the signal models of the gluino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ for the signal models of the squark-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ for the signal models of the squark-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ for the signal models of the wino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ for the signal models of the wino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for the signal models of the photon+jets GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ for the signal models of the photon+jets GGM grid.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the gluino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1900 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 300 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the gluino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1900 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1700 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the squark-bino model, where the squarks have mass of 1700 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 200 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the squark-bino model, where the squarks have mass of 1700 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1600 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the wino-bino model, where the winos have mass of 1000 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 200 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the wino-bino model, where the winos have mass of 1000 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 800 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ selection, for two relevant signal points in the higgsino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1974 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 442 GeV (10000 generated events), and 652 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ selection, for two relevant signal points in the higgsino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1974 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1868 GeV (10000 generated events), and 1920 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.