Final state radiation correction used in the $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-p_{T}^{Z}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Measured total $Z$-boson cross-section for different datasets. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Fraction of nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons (in \%) in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-0.2$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

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

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

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

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

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

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

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

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

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

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

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ with leptonically decaying $\tau$ at 95% confidence level.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level, combination of hadronically and leptonically decaying $\tau$ channels.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(e)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(\mu)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Top quark mass measured inclusive of lepton flavor and for positively charged lepton.

Top quark mass measured inclusive of lepton flavor and for negatively charged lepton.

Top quark mass measured inclusive of lepton flavor and for negatively charged lepton.

Difference between the measured masses of top quarks and antiquarks.

Difference between the measured masses of top quarks and antiquarks.

Ratio of the measured masses of top anitiquarks to quarks.

Ratio of the measured masses of top anitiquarks to quarks.

Comparison of measurements of the top quark mass by ATLAS and CMS Collaborations in various event topologies and center-of-mass energies.

Comparison of measurements of the top quark mass by ATLAS and CMS Collaborations in various event topologies and center-of-mass energies.

Comparison of the mass difference between top quarks and antiquarks measured by ATLAS and CMS colaborations in various event topologies and center-of-mass energies.

Comparison of the mass difference between top quarks and antiquarks measured by ATLAS and CMS colaborations in various event topologies and center-of-mass energies.

Event yields corresponding to positively and negatively charged muons in the final states obtained from simulated signal and background processes, as well as in data for the 2J1T event category.

Event yields corresponding to positively and negatively charged muons in the final states obtained from simulated signal and background processes, as well as in data for the 2J1T event category.

Event yields corresponding to positively and negatively charged electron in the final states obtained from simulated signal and background processes, as well as in data for the 2J1T event category.

Event yields corresponding to positively and negatively charged electron in the final states obtained from simulated signal and background processes, as well as in data for the 2J1T event category.

Summary of systematic uncertainties in GeV for each final-state lepton charge configuration. With the exception of the flavor-dependent JES sources, the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum in quadrature of the individual systematic sources. The statistical uncertainties in the systematic shifts are quoted within parentheses whenever alternative simulated samples with systematic variations have been used.

Summary of systematic uncertainties in GeV for each final-state lepton charge configuration. With the exception of the flavor-dependent JES sources, the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum in quadrature of the individual systematic sources. The statistical uncertainties in the systematic shifts are quoted within parentheses whenever alternative simulated samples with systematic variations have been used.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in signal events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in signal events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in signal events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in signal events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in background events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in background events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in background events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the muon final state in background events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in signal events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in signal events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in signal events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in signal events of the 2J1T category after application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in background events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables used for the electron final state in background events of the 2J1T category before application of the decorrelation method available in TMVA.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables in background events for the elecron final state in the 2J1T category after decorrelation.

Correlations in % among the BDT input variables in background events for the elecron final state in the 2J1T category after decorrelation.

Correlations in % among the parameter of interest and the nuisance parameters corresponding to the fit to data for the $\ell^{\pm}$ final state in the 2J1T event category.

Correlations in % among the parameter of interest and the nuisance parameters corresponding to the fit to data for the $\ell^{\pm}$ final state in the 2J1T event category.

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency within the fiducial region for the VBF $\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\rightarrow 2\ell 2v$ and $\mathrm{H}^{\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow 3\ell v$ processes, as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H}_{5}}$. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. The theoretical uncertainties in the acceptance are also included.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95\% confidence level for $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}) \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{W}^{\pm})$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}}$. The contribution of the $\mathrm{H}^{\pm}$ boson signal is set to zero for the derivation of the exclusion limits on the $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}) \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{W}^{\pm})$. Values above the curves are excluded.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95\% confidence level for $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm}) \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{Z})$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{H}^{\pm}}$. The contribution of the $\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}$ boson signal is set to zero for the derivation of the exclusion limits on the $\sigma_\mathrm{VBF}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm}) \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm} \rightarrow \mathrm{W}^{\pm}\mathrm{Z})$. Values above the curves are excluded.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95\% confidence level for $s_{\mathrm{H}}$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{H}_{5}}$ in the Georgi-Machacek model. Values above the curves are excluded. The exclusion limits for $s_{\mathrm{H}}$ are shown up to $m_{\mathrm{H}_{5}}=2000$ GeV, given the low sensitivity in the Georgi-Machacek model for values above that mass.

Covariance matrix for all the bins used in Figure 4. The covariance matrix from the background-only fit is shown.

95% CL observed upper limits on the Yukawa couplings

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A. Region A is defined as 391 cm $< r <$ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $< |z| <$ 671 cm. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A. Region A is defined as 391 cm $< r <$ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $< |z| <$ 671 cm. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

The geometric signal acceptance as a function of $c\tau$. The acceptance is shown for four different LLP mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV. The acceptance is defined by requiring at least 1 LLP to decay in the region defined as 400 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2.4.

Distribution of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system for the $\mathrm{Z}\gamma\gamma$ muon channel. The predicted yields are shown with their pre-fit normalisations. The observed data, the expected signal contribution and the background estimates are presented with error bars showing the corresponding statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system, obtained in the control region enriched in misidentified photons for the $\mathrm{W}\gamma\gamma$ electron channel. The predicted yields are shown with their pre-fit normalisations. The observed data, the expected signal contribution and the background estimates are presented with error bars showing the corresponding statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system, obtained in the control region enriched in misidentified photons for the $\mathrm{Z}\gamma\gamma$ electron channel. The predicted yields are shown with their pre-fit normalisations. The observed data, the expected signal contribution and the background estimates are presented with error bars showing the corresponding statistical uncertainties.

The measured $\mathrm{W}\gamma\gamma$ and $\mathrm{Z}\gamma\gamma$ fiducial cross sections and corresponding theoretical predictions from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The measured yields in the electron and muon channels are extrapolated to a common fiducial phase space determined from simulated signal events at the generated particle level. Generated particles are considered stable if their mean decay length is larger than $1\,\mathrm{cm}$. Generated leptons are required to have a $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>15\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. The momenta of photons in a cone of $\Delta R=0.1$, the same cone size as the one applied to reconstructed data, are added to the charged lepton momentum to correct for final-state radiation. Generated photons are required to have $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>15\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. Additionally, the candidate photons are required to have no selected leptons or photons in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.4$ and no other stable particles, apart from photons and neutrinos, in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.1$. Events are then selected in the $\mathrm{W}\gamma\gamma$ channel by requiring exactly one electron (muon) with $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and at least two photons with $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>20\,\mathrm{GeV}$. Events are selected in the $\mathrm{Z}\gamma\gamma$ channel by requiring two electrons (muons), at least one of them with $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and not less than two photons, each of them with $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{t}>20\,\mathrm{GeV}$. Additionally, the invariant mass of the dilepton system is required to be $m_{\ell\ell}>55\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected and observed 95% confidence level intervals for the different anomalous couplings parameters in both the $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell\ell\gamma\gamma$ channels. All parameters are fixed to their SM values except the one that is fitted. No unitarity regularisation scheme is applied. Intervals with a NAN value are not measured in the corresponding channels.

Differential cross sections as function of transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Differential cross sections as function of transverse momentum imbalance between leading and subleading jet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Area normalized distribution as function of Delta Phi between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events.

Area normalized distribution as function of transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events.

Area normalized distribution as function of Delta Phi between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Area normalized distribution as function of transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Area normalized distribution as function of transverse momentum imbalance between leading and subleading jet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events

Response matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events.

Response matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events.

Response matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Response matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Response matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between the leading jet and subleading jet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events.

Correlation matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events (for absolute differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events (for absolute differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for absolute differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for absolute differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between the leading jet and subleading jet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for absolute differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events (for normalized differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and the leading jet for Z+ ≥ 1 jet events (for normalized differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for Delta Phi between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for normalized differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between Z boson and dijet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for normalized differential cross section measurements).

Correlation matrix for transverse momentum imbalance between the leading jet and subleading jet for Z+ ≥ 2 jets events (for normalized differential cross section measurements).

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading jet transverse momenta for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading lepton transverse momenta for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured double-differential cross sections as functions of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $|\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}|$ for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in photon transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading jet transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading lepton transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured double-differential cross sections as functions of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $|\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}|$ for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The expected and observed limits on the aQGC parameters at 95% confidence level. The last column presents the scattering energy values for which the amplitude would violate unitarity for the observed value of the aQGC parameter. All coupling parameter limits are set in TeV$^{-4}$, whereas the unitarity bounds are in TeV.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the production mode signal strength fit.

Results of the maximal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

The observed and expected impacts from the various sources of systematic uncertainty on the per-production mode signal strengths. The expected impacts are derived using an asimov dataset.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 1.2 maximal merging fit.

Results of the maximal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

Results of the minimal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 1.2 maximal merging fit.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 1.2 minimal merging fit.

Results of the minimal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

Observed likelihood surface.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 1.2 minimal merging fit.

Expected likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Expected likelihood surface.

Expected likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Results of the STXS stage 0 fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

Expected likelihood surface.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 0 fit.

Results of the STXS stage 0 fit. The best fit cross sections are shown together with the respective 68% C.L. intervals. The uncertainty is decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected uncertainties on the fitted parameters are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those predictions.

Observed likelihood surface.

Observed and expected correlations between the parameters in the STXS stage 0 fit.

Expected likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Expected likelihood surface.

Expected likelihood surface.

Observed likelihood surface.

Expected likelihood surface.

Distribution of $m_{T}(W)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Extracted scale factors for the contribution from misidentified electrons for the three data-taking periods, and the Z$\gamma$, W$\gamma$ simulations.

Extracted scale factors for the contribution from misidentified electrons for the three data-taking periods, and the Z$\gamma$, W$\gamma$ simulations.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

differential cross sections.

The correlation matrix for the Higgs pT measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The correlation matrix for the jet multiplicity measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The correlation matrix for the leading jet pT measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The fiducial integrated signal strength and cross section.

Correlation between the Wilson coefficients (in %), after the 5D fit to data.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Correlation matrix for the individual sources of systematic uncertainty considered in the analysis, for the combined opposite sign (OS) and same sign (SS) binned-template profile likelihood fit to data. The OS or SS refers to the charge signs of the primary lepton and the soft muon. The gamma parameters are NPs used to describe the effect of the limited statistics of the samples.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $10<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<20$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $e-\mu$ channel.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.

The measurement of the ratio of the rate of decay of W bosons to τ-leptons and muons, $R(\tau/\mu)=B(W\rightarrow\tau\nu_\tau)/B(W\rightarrow \mu\nu_\mu)$.

The (Z to l+l-l'+l'-) branching ratio. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is theoretical uncertainty, and the third is luminosity uncertainty. The theoretical prediction is from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

The total (P P to Z Z) cross section. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is theoretical uncertainty, and the third is luminosity uncertainty. The theoretical predictions are MATRIX generated at NNLO and POWHEG generated at NLO plus the gluon-gluon initial state contribution from MCFM. Both use NNPDF3.0 PDFs and fixed scales mu_F = mu_R = 0.5m[l+l-l'+l'-].

Full covariance matrix of the total energy spectrum.

Full covariance matrix of the electromagnetic energy spectrum.

Full covariance matrix of the hadronic energy spectrum.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 1.5 TO 2.0 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.7). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 2.0 TO 2.5 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.7). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 2.5 TO 3.0 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.7). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 3.2 TO 4.7 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.7). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| < 0.5 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 0.5 TO 1.0 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 1.0 TO 1.5 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 1.5 TO 2.0 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 2.0 TO 2.5 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 2.5 TO 3.0 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Inclusive Jet Cross Section for |rapidity| 3.2 TO 4.7 as a function of the jet transverse momentum. Jets are clustered with the anti-kt algorithm ( R = 0.4). The (sys) error is the total systematic error, including the luminosity uncertainty of 2.7%.

Covariance matrix of absolute cross section at particle level.

Absolute cross section at particle level.

Covariance matrix of absolute cross section at particle level.

Absolute cross section at particle level.

Covariance matrix of absolute cross section at particle level.

Absolute cross section at particle level.

Covariance matrix of absolute cross section at particle level.