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.

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.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Cutflow for two representative signal samples used in this analysis. The excited tau mass $m_{\tau^\ast} = 2.75$ TeV and the contact interaction scale $\Lambda=10$ TeV. The LQ mass $m_\mathrm{LQ} = 1.3$ TeV. The event yields include all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Acceptance x efficiency of the $\tau^\ast$ signal SR selection

Acceptance x efficiency of the LQ signal SR selection

Background-only fit to the observed numbers of events (black points) as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal fiducial cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{fid}}$, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the the ALP coupling constant, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands. Contours of the ALP natural width $\Gamma$ are illustrated by the smooth blue solid lines.

Fiducial region acceptance of signal events for coupling constant f$^{-1}=0.05$ TeV$^{-1}$. EL, SD, and DD stand for the exclusive, single-dissociative, and double-dissociative processes. The acceptances are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} $ , where $i$ specifies the process type, exclusive, single-dissociative, or double-dissociative.

Correction factors $A_{\textrm{X}}/A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ for the exclusive signal events with ALP coupling constant f$^{-1}$=0.05 TeV$^{-1}$, where acceptance $A_{\textrm{X}}$ and efficiency $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are defined in arXiv:2102.13405. $A_{\textrm{X}}$/$A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}}$, where $i$ specifies the process type.

Simulated ALP signal cutflow for $m_{\rm{X}}$=300 GeV and $m_{\rm{X}}$=1200 GeV. The yields are normalized to a luminosity of 14.6 fb$^{-1}$. Selections are applied for each side after the selection on acoplanarity. The union of the sets of selected events is taken finally.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGSlep-M.

N-1 distribution for $\sum{p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{jet}}$of observed data and expected background in SRUDD-ge2b.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRLQD.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSSlep-H(loose).

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 10(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 15(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 10(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 15(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 10(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 15(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 12(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 17(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 12(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 17(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 12(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 17(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 14(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 19(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 14(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 19(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 14(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 19(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 14(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 19(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRLQD signal region from Fig 14(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal efficiency for SRLQD signal region from Fig 19(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 11(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 16(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 11(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 16(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 11(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 16(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 11(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 16(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 13(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 18(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 13(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 18(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 13(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 18(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 13(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 18(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 13(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 18(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-1b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge3b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRLQD in a susy scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2200 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1870 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H(loose) in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{JJ}}$ in the SR (black points) compared to the background-only expectation, where the shape is derived from the CR and the normalisation is fitted in the SR.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model A (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model A (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model A, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.05$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.2$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model B (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model B (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model B, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.15$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.5$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model C (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model C (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model C, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.15$ and $g_{q_d}= 0.5$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model D (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model D (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model D, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.05$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.2$.

Relative efficiency (in %) of each stage of the analysis selection with respect to the previous one for models A through D and $m_{Z^\prime}=2.5$ TeV. Approximately 90000 events were generated per signal mass hypothesis.