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.

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXee

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXmumu

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXll

Exclusion limit for cah

Exclusion limit for cZh

Exclusion limit for kappa

Distribution of the three leading leptons flavour in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Efficiency, acceptance, and proportion of events with leptonic tau decays in WZ production

WZ fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ total cross section extrapolated from the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

W$^{+}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

W$^{-}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ charge asymmetry ratio measured on each of the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the W polarization fit

Distribution of the cosine of the Z polarization angle in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the Z polarization fit

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^W$-$f_{L}^W-f_R^W$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^Z$-$f_{L}^Z-f_R^Z$ plane

Distribution of the invariant mass of the WZ system in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering both the SM interferences and purely BSM (order $\Lambda^{-2}$ and $\Lambda^{-4}$) terms

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{w}$-$c_{b}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering only the SM-EFT interference (order $\Lambda^{-2}$) terms

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{b}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the Z boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the leading jet

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the jet multiplicity

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the invariant mass of the WZ system

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the invariant mass of the WZ system

Response matrix for the invariant mass of the WZ system obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Response matrix for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Response matrix for the cosine of the Z polarization angle obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Invariant mass distribution of the diphoton pairs for the elastic selection region with events satisfying a < 0.005 (signal contribution is magnified by a factor 5000).

Predicted number of events having an elastic diphoton pair in association with a pair of protons observed within the range where the proton detectors have a radiation inefficiency less than 10%. The yields where the two-photon and two-proton systems mass and rapidity are matching at 2 and 3$\sigma$ are also quoted. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

Predicted number of events having an elastic diphoton pair in association with a pair of protons observed within the range where the proton detectors have a radiation inefficiency less than 10%. The yields where the two-photon and two-proton systems mass and rapidity are matching at 2 and 3$\sigma$ are also quoted. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% CL expected and observed frequentist upper limit for the LbL cross section within the $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$ search region.

95% CL expected and observed frequentist upper limit for the LbL cross section within the $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$ search region.

95% expected and observed one-dimensional limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters, when the other parameter is set to zero. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed one-dimensional limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters, when the other parameter is set to zero. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters. The parametric elliptic form is assumed: $a_0\zeta_1^2+a_1\zeta_1\zeta_2+a_2\zeta_2^2=1$. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters. The parametric elliptic form is assumed: $a_0\zeta_1^2+a_1\zeta_1\zeta_2+a_2\zeta_2^2=1$. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin, distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY and distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

The DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample compared to predictions from the pure DPS sample in PYTHIA 8 (P8) and KATIE (KT). The distributions are normalized to unity.

The results of the template fit for the POWHEG (PW) NLO 2 -> 2 model without the hard MPI removed. As the DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample carries a statistical and systematic uncertainty, so does the total fitted sample.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (Drell-Yan) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.