Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.2 < |y| < 1.6.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.6 < |y| < 2.0.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.0 < |y| < 2.4.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.4 < |y| < 2.8.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.8 < |y| < 3.6.

Measured cross sections in full-lepton phase space as a function of |y|.

Normalised measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 1.6.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-3.0 < y_b < -2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-3.0 < y_b < -2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

Predicted and observed yields as a function of $m_{4\ell}$ in the VBS-Suppressed region. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Relative systematic uncertainties in the unfolded differential cross section for 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of m_{jj}

Relative systematic uncertainties in the unfolded differential cross section for 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of m_{4\ell}

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $m_{jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $m_{jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $m_{4\ell}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $m_{4\ell}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $ p_{T,4l}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $ p_{T,4l}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $|\Delta y_{jj}|$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $|\Delta y_{jj}|$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $cos(\theta^{*}_{12})$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $cos(\theta^{*}_{12})$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $cos(\theta^{*}_{34})$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $cos(\theta^{*}_{34})$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $p_{T,jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $p_{T,jj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $p_{T,4ljj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $p_{T,4ljj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Enhanced region as a function of $S_{T,4ljj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Differential cross-sections for inclusive 4ljj production in the VBS-Suppressed region as a function of $S_{T,4ljj}$. Overflow events are included in the last bin of the distribution.

Statistical correlation between different bins of the unfolded cross-section for all the measured observables in the VBS-Enhanced region.

Statistical correlation between different bins of the unfolded cross-section for all the measured observables in the VBS-Suppressed region.

Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's the signal region 3 after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's validation region before the fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the pre-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained before the fit, too. There is also the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for left-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.

95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for right-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 monopoles as a function of mass for magnetic charges $|g|=1g_D$ and $|g|=2g_D$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-0 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-0 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

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 $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.