The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the 2l categories for the signal produced via vector boson fusion.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the non-VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis. The CMS search for a heavy resonance using 2016 data and the same final state [JHEP 11 (2018) 172] is shown as a comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 2 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 3 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 4 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Electron $p_{T}$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the electron channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Muon $p_T$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_T^{miss}$ distribution in the muon channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the E+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the MU+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Theoretical prediction for the production and decay cross-section of SSM WPRIME bosons (W --> LEPTON + NU) as a function of the WPRIME mass, for the range 200-6400 GeV and inclusive in phase-space (no cuts). The uncertainty shown covers PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties. These theoretical predictions are obtained with PYTHIA (LO) and corrected to NNLO in QCD using FEWZ program.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the electron channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime, being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW, as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the muon channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime , being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the electron channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the muon channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the combined electron and muon channels for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{231}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a STAU mediator, as a function of the mass of STAU, for the electron channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$=0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying the ones shown by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{132}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a stau mediator, as a function of the mass of the stau, for the muon channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ = 0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying these ones by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Region in the oblique (W,Y) parameter phase space allowed by the current analysis at 95% CL. The combination of the electron and muon channel distributions from the 2017 and 2018 data sets at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV is used, having 101 fb-1 of luminosity.

Negative Log-Likelihood for the determination of the oblique W parameter, for the combination of the electron and muon channel and for 2017 and 2018 data sets (L=101 fb-1) at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV.

Total background estimate and observed data in all bins used in the limit calculation for the SSM WPRIME limits. The total event sample is split into the three years of data taking and the two lepton flavors.The distributions being shown are $M_T$ ones. The associated integrated luminosities for each year are of 35.9, 41.5, and 59.4 fb$̣^{-1}. The mass bins are numbered in ascending order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1600\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2000\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2200\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2400\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2600\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2800\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

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

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.01 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.1 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.2 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.3 $ imes$ its mass.

Model independent observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a top quark and a Z boson as a function of the T mass and width.

Singlet model 95% CL excluded values of the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a T decaying to a top quark and a Z boson.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section ($\sigma$) and the branching fraction, obtained after combining all categories with 138 $\mathrm{fb}^{−1}$ of data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV for $\mathrm{V'}$ to $VV$ + $VH$ signal in HVT model C.

Total signal efficiency including all event categories as a function of the resonance mass $M_X$ for all DY/ggF signal models under consideration. The estimates from MC simulation (markers) are interpolated with a functional form (lines).

Total signal efficiency including all event categories as a function of the resonance mass $M_X$ for all VBF signal models under consideration. The estimates from MC simulation (markers) are interpolated with a functional form (lines).

Measured ratio of $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}/\mathcal{B}_{2\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$