Dijet mass distributions for data in the (a) WW signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (b) WZ signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (c) ZZ signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (d) WZ+WW signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (e) WW+ZZ signal region.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+WZ production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for (c) WW+ZZ production as a function of scalar mass.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WZ production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of scalar mass.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of scalar mass.

Regions of the non-universal G(221) parameter space excluded at 95% CL.

Number of expected $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$, $W^{\prime}_{\rm NU}$, Standard Model background and observed events passing the optimal $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each considered signal mass hypothesis. The expectations include the total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The yields and uncertainties are calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 50 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $m_{\rm T}$ (see HepData abstract for parameterization), defined as the ratio of the number of $\tau\nu$ events remaining after applying the full selection at reconstruction-level to those remaining after applying the fiducial selection at generator-level. The efficiency is largely model independent, with an uncertainty of ~10% due to model choice.

Extrapolation factors AWW -- used to extrapolate from the fiducial particle level to the total phase space.

Cross sections and ratios (13/8 TeV) -- experimental and PDF uncertainties are treated as uncorrelated, scale uncertainties are correlated between the different centre-of-mass energies.

Measured $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$.

Measured $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Measured ratio of the $\gamma+b$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$ to that for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Measured ratio of the $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$ to that for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Statistical correlation between the $\gamma+b$ and the $\gamma+c$ cross sections in a given $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ bin and $|\eta^\gamma|$ region. The two cross sections are correlated as the heavy flavour fractions are extracted simultaneously from a template fit, performed in each $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ bin and separately for the two $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+b$ cross section for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+b$ cross section for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+c$ cross section for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+c$ cross section for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in cos(theta*) (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in number of jets (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in transverse momentum of the leading jet (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in dijet invariant mass (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in dijet angle phi (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in m12 vs m34 (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in Higgs transverse momentum for 0 jet events (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in Higgs transverse momentum for 1-jet events (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in Higgs transverse momentum for events with 2 or more jets (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in dijet angle eta (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in invariant mass of the leading lepton pair (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured differential fiducial cross sections in number of bjets (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). Values without uncertainties are 95% CL limits in the absence of signal events. The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty. All predictions were normalized to the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication.

Measured fiducial cross sections (second column). The given uncertainty is split into statistical (first) and systematic components (second). The third column gives the theoretical prediction of Higgs production in the fiducial volume using the best available inclusive Higgs production cross sections at the time of the publication. The acceptance to estimate the cross section in the fiducial volume is calculated using Powheg NNLOPS for the ggF process, Powheg for the VBF and the VH processes, and Madgraph5_aMC@NLO for the ttH and bbH processes. The uncertainty includes PDF, scale, and branching fraction uncertainty.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 10).

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 10).

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section of the ZH process with the prompt Z&rarr; ee and Z&rarr; &mu;&mu; decays and the invisible Higgs boson decays as a function of m_H, obtained from the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The observed and expected limits are given, as well as the &pm;1&sigma; and &pm;2&sigma; error bands on the expected limits. The signal process is only modelled for the qq initial state, and the theory uncertainties on the signal prediction are not considered.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two electrons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two muons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the combined dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.