Data from Figure 2, panel d, upper panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 2, panel d, lower panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel c, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel d, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, Zero Crossing Point of $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, $\left\langle [p_{T}]\right\rangle$ for $p_{T}$ range of 0.5-10 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel a, Closure of Sum Rule 1 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel b, Closure of Sum Rule 2 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel a, $v_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel b, $v_{0} / v^{5\%}_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel a, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel b, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs Centrality for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 60-70% Centrality

An example of the measured energy distribution in a single OHCal tower, showing the MIP distribution from a GEANT-4 simulation of cosmic-ray muons from EcoMug.

$\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ measurements in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}} = 200$ GeV over the pseudorapidity range $\left|\eta\right| < 1.1$.

Measurement of $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ in 0-5% central Au+Au events as a function of $\eta$ over the range $\left|\eta\right| < 1.1$.

Measured $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ normalized by the estimated number of participant pairs ($0.5$$N_{part}$), as a function of $N_{part}$, using the full calorimeter system.

Measured $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ normalized by the estimated number of participant pairs ($0.5$$N_{part}$), as a function of $N_{part}$, predictions from AMPT.

Measured $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ normalized by the estimated number of participant pairs ($0.5$$N_{part}$), as a function of $N_{part}$, predictions from EPOS.

Measured $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta}$ normalized by the estimated number of participant pairs ($0.5$$N_{part}$), as a function of $N_{part}$, predictions from HIJING.

The unfolded dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The unfolded dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

Mean xj ratio, $\langle x_{j} \rangle$, in the range $10-60$ as unfolded for different multiplicities, for different leading and subleading jet combinations for the midrapidity, forward, and backward regions

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

Mean xj ratio, $\langle x_{j} \rangle$, in the range $10-60$ as reconstructed (raw) for different multiplicities, for different leading and subleading jet combinations for the midrapidity, forward, and backward regions

Example description

Differential fiducial cross sections for the number of jets

Example description

Differential fiducial cross sections for the leading jet pT

Example description

The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the scalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the pseudoscalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the QCD control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(1l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the Z(2l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(2l) control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $(N_{\text{jet}},N_{\text{bjet}})$ distribution of the ttZ control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN distribution of the Drell-Yan control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the production cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio to jets, $\sigma \cdot A \cdot \text{BR}$, of Gaussian-shaped signals of 5%, 10%, and 15% width relative to their peak mass, $m_G$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J50 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Acceptance of simulated $Z^\prime$ signal events given the analysis event selection as a function of $m_{Z^\prime}$. The solid black line corresponds to the acceptance without a lower $m_{jj}$ requirement applied, the solid blue line includes the $m_{jj} > 344$ GeV requirement of the J50 signal region, and the solid red line includes the $m_{jj} > 481$ GeV requirement of the J100 signal region.

Numbers of events in each of the two considered datasets after consecutively applying the analysis selections.