Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W+ signal region.

Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W+ signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the dimuon mass in the Z boson signal region.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV. The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (larger value) and quadratic (smaller value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

Comparison of the measured and theoretical cross sections for Z, W+, W-, and W production at different center-of-mass energies. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with the NNPDF 3.1 PDF set.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 and ISR starting scale SpaceShower:pT0Ref = 1 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 and ISR starting scale SudakovCommon:pTmin=0.7 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

The model-independent 95\% \CL expected and observed upper limits set on ${\sigma(\PP\to 2\Pa+\PX)\mathcal{B}^2(\Pa\to 2\PGm)\alphaGen}$ over the range $0.21 < \MPa < 9\GeV$ for the combined 2016, 2017, and 2018 analyses. Mass ranges that overlap with \JPsi and \PgU resonances are excluded from the search

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on the effective coupling $\CahLambda$ of the ALP to the SM Higgs assuming the branching fraction of the ALP to muons is 1 (blue) and 0.1 (orange), for both the expected (dashed) and observed (solid) limits

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on the effective coupling $\cll/\Lambda$ of the ALP to the SM leptons. The orange shaded region represents the parameter space excluded by this search under three choices of $\CahLambda$ $1\TeV^{-2}$ (solid), $0.1\TeV^{-2}$ (dashed), and $0.01\TeV^{-2}$ (dotted)

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on $\varepsilon^{2} \mathcal{B}(\ZDark \to \sDark \overline{\sDark}) \mathcal{B}^{2}(\sDark \rightarrow 2\PGm)$ for the vector portal model as a function of the dark scalar mass $\MsDark$ and dark vector boson mass $\MZDark$. The yellow and green bands indicate one and two standard deviation values of the limit, respectively. Because the model-independent limits are calculated only up to a dimuon mass of 60\GeV, the \sDark mass considered for these limits is below 60\GeV

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 90~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 125~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 150~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits (black solid curves) from this search as interpreted in the dark SUSY scenario for the process $\PP \to \Ph \to 2\nOne \to 2\gammaDark + 2\nDark \to 4\PGm + \PX$, with \mbox{$\MnOne = 60\GeV$} and $\MnDark = 1\GeV$. The limits are presented in the plane of $\varepsilon$ and $\MgammaDark$. The color gradient represents different branching fraction assumptions for \mbox{$\mathcal{B}(\Ph \to 2\nOne \to 2\gammaDark + 2\nDark)$}, ranging from dark orange (0.05\%) to light orange (10\%). The degradation of the limit around 1\GeV is attributed to the drop in the dimuon branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\gammaDark \to 2\mu)$ due to the dimuon resonance of the $\phi$ meson~\cite{Batell:2009yf}

non prompt $\psi(2S)$ $\lambda_\theta$

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $+1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Post-fit distribution of $N_{\mathrm{tops}}^{\mathrm{DNN}} (\mathrm{R=1.0})$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(j^{b}_{R=1.0}, c)$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(c_{1})$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} \textrm{Significance}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of NN signal score in the SRD signal region presented without the associated SRD applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in the SRD signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Pull plots showing the SRA, SRB and SRC post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Pull plots showing the SRD post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region A. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region B. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region C. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1250. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1500. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 2000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 14.

Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 15.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 16.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 17.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 18.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 19.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 20.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 1.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 2.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 3.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 4.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 5.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 6.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 7.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 8.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 9.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 10.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M7 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient. The limits on M7 were obtained without taking into account the SM-EFT interference for the EW W$^\pm$Zjj final state.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S02 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T2 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5) \times \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5 \rightarrow W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin\theta_{\mathrm{H}}$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass in the Georgi-Machacek model.