$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Branching ratio of $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}\rightarrow\phi\pi^+\rightarrow\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^-\pi^+$: $(2.22 \pm 0.06)\%$. Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.7\%$ Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $1.9\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{*+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $0.7\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.8\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.2\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/(\mathrm{D}^{0}+\mathrm{D}^{+})$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.3\%$

$\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Charm $f_\mathrm{s}/(f_\mathrm{u}+f_\mathrm{d})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{c\bar{c}})$ at $|y|<0.5$ in pp collisions vs.$\sqrt{s}$

The observed 90% C.L upper limit on neutrino effective millicharge (\delta_{Q}[e_{0}]) in SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range.

The observerd 90% C.L upper limit on solar axion g_{ae} coupling constant in valid across the mass range for SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of Solar Axion Mass .

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on axion like particle (ALP) coupling constant (g_{ae}) in SR1. ALP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of ALP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on hidden photon (HP) coupling constant squared (\kappa^2) in SR1. HP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of HP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-independent (cm^2) WIMP cross-section vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2), using the Migdal signal pathway. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on neutrons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on protons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Event yields after a background-only fit and data in the three signal regions. All the backgrounds except the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ are estimated using the real $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ contributions from MC. The fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ background contribution is data-driven. The top-quark, $V$+jets, and small backgrounds are included in "Others". The total uncertainties include both systematic and statistical. In the $WW1\ell2\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, the smaller uncertainty in the total background than the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ is due to the anticorrelations between the nuisance parameters of the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ and diboson backgrounds obtained in the fit.

Uncertainties on $\sigma(pp\to X\to SH)$ obtained from the combined fit to the data for the least and most sensitive mass points. The uncertainties are symmetrised and grouped into the categories described in the systematic section.

Summary of observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the production cross-section of $\sigma(pp\to X\to SH)$ in fb in the combination of $WW$+$ZZ$, and in the $WW$ and $ZZ$ individual channels. The best expected limit is set to 85 fb for $m_{X}$ = 1250 GeV and $_{S}$ = 300 GeV. The combination limits gain about 26--53% over the best individual limit from the $WW1\ell2\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of charged-particle jets from model predictions in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section ratios of charged-particle jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section ratios of charged-particle jets in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $R_{\rm pPb}$ of charged-particle jets in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $R_{\rm pPb}$ of charged-particle jets in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR1, which consists of flavor sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Pre-fit (post-fit) results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR1, which consists of flavor sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Pre-fit (post-fit) results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR1, which consists of flavor sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Pre-fit (post-fit) results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Reconstructed mass of the Z' candidate in CR2, which consists of the dilepton mass sidebands of SR1 (upper), SR2 (middle), and SR3 (lower) regions. Post-fit dielectron (dimuon) channel results are shown on the left (right). The fitting procedure is described in Section 7.

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

Distributions of the reconstructed Z' candidate mass in SR1 (upper row), SR2 (middle row) and SR3 (lower row). Left (right) column corresponds to the dielectron (dimuon) channel. Signal samples with ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 200 GeV)$ and ($m_{Z'}$, $m_{N}$) = (4000 GeV, 1200 GeV)$ are plotted together with a cross section times branching fraction of 1 fb

The observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the product of \Zp boson cross section times branching fraction are shown for the case of ${m}_{N}$ = ${m}_{Z'}/4$ (upper row) and ${m}_{N}$ = 100 GeV (lower row) for dielectron (left column) and dimuon (right column) channels. The green and yellow bands indicate the 68\% and 95\% CL regions around the expected limit.

The observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the product of \Zp boson cross section times branching fraction are shown for the case of ${m}_{N}$ = ${m}_{Z'}/4$ (upper row) and ${m}_{N}$ = 100 GeV (lower row) for dielectron (left column) and dimuon (right column) channels. The green and yellow bands indicate the 68\% and 95\% CL regions around the expected limit.

The observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the product of \Zp boson cross section times branching fraction are shown for the case of ${m}_{N}$ = ${m}_{Z'}/4$ (upper row) and ${m}_{N}$ = 100 GeV (lower row) for dielectron (left column) and dimuon (right column) channels. The green and yellow bands indicate the 68\% and 95\% CL regions around the expected limit.

The observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the product of \Zp boson cross section times branching fraction are shown for the case of ${m}_{N}$ = ${m}_{Z'}/4$ (upper row) and ${m}_{N}$ = 100 GeV (lower row) for dielectron (left column) and dimuon (right column) channels. The green and yellow bands indicate the 68\% and 95\% CL regions around the expected limit.

Observed and expected exclusion regions at 95% CL in the 2D phase space of ${m}_{Z'}$ vs. ${m}_{N}$ for dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) channels. One standard deviation (s.d.) limits are also shown. Both opposite- and same-sign (OS and SS) dileptons from decays of heavy neutrino pairs are considered.

Observed and expected exclusion regions at 95% CL in the 2D phase space of ${m}_{Z'}$ vs. ${m}_{N}$ for dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) channels. One standard deviation (s.d.) limits are also shown. Both opposite- and same-sign (OS and SS) dileptons from decays of heavy neutrino pairs are considered.