The measured differences of mass differences between vector and ground states.

The measured ratios of mass differences between vector and ground states.

Likelihood scan of cHuRe1122 versus cHuRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are fixed to zero.

Likelihood scan of cHdRe1122 versus cHdRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are fixed to zero.

Likelihood scan of cW versus cWtil. Other Wilson coefficients are fixed to zero.

Likelihood scan of cHqMRe1122 versus cHqMRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are profiled as well.

Likelihood scan of cHq3MRe1122 versus cHq3MRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are profiled as well.

Likelihood scan of cHuRe1122 versus cHuRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are profiled as well.

Likelihood scan of cHdRe1122 versus cHdRe33. Other Wilson coefficients are profiled as well.

Likelihood scan of cW versus cWtil. Other Wilson coefficients are profiled as well.

Distributions of discriminant for the $2_{m}^{+}$ and $0^{-}$ models.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|y_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\cos(\theta^{*})$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of the number of jets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Measured value of the charge asymmetry, $A_{C}$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the absolute difference of the absolute lepton rapidities $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the invariant mass of the dilepton system $m_{e\mu}$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Measured value of the asymmetry in the CP-odd observable $O_{z}$, $A_{CP}$.

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.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying into charm quarks and neutralinos for the fit with the best expected CL$_\mathrm{S}$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp-1c showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(450,430)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}\mathrm{ Sig.}$ in SR-HM1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(1000,1)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{min}}(c)$ in SR-HM2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(750,450)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(600,550)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,470)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp3 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,375)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp-1c using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (450,430)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (600,550)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,470)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,375)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (1000,1)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

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 cutflow table for $N1$ and $N2$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 0.1 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SC = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

The cutflow table for $N3$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 10 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SS = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with electron neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with muon neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with tau neutrinos

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}