Spectrum of ETmiss for the muon channel after the event selection. The spectrum is shown with the requirement MT > 252 GeV.

Spectrum of MT for the electron channel after the event selection.

Spectrum of MT for the muon channel after the event selection.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on the DM-nucleon scattering cross-section as a function of M(chi) at 90% CL for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].

Number of signal events.

Acceptance [%].

Efficiency [%].

Experimental uncertainty.

Expected CLs.

Observed CLs.

Best signal region.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].

Number of signal events.

Acceptance [%].

Efficiency [%].

Uncertainty [%].

Expected CLs.

Observed CLs.

Best signal region.

Best signal region.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reconstructed $\cos\theta^*$ distributions for data and the SM background estimate in the dimuon channel.

Reconstructed $A_{\rm FB}$ distributions for data and the SM background estimate as a function of dielectron mass.

Reconstructed $A_{\rm FB}$ distributions for data and the SM background estimate as a function of dimuon mass.

Summary of 95% C.L. lower exclusion limits on $\Lambda$ for the combined dilepton contact interaction search, using a uniform positive prior in 1/$\Lambda^2$.

Summary of 95% C.L. lower exclusion limits on $M_{\rm S}$ for the combined dilepton ADD large extra dimensions search, using a uniform positive prior in 1/$M_{\rm S}^8$.

Reconstructed $\cos\theta^*$ distributions for data and the SM background estimate in the electron channel.

Reconstructed $\cos\theta^*$ distributions for data and the SM background estimate in the muon channel.

The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.

The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with two-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.

The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with four-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $W \rightarrow \mu \nu$ control region, for the M1 selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region, for the M1 selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region, for the M1 selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the $Z \rightarrow \mu \mu$ control region, for the M1 selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $Z \rightarrow \mu \mu$ control region, for the M1 selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the $W\rightarrow \mu \nu$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $W\rightarrow \mu \nu$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the $W\rightarrow e \nu$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $W\rightarrow e \nu$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the $Z\rightarrow ll$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the $Z\rightarrow ll$ control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the t-(anti)-t control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution in the t-(anti)-t control region, for the c-tagged selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the V3 selections compared to the SM predictions.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the V4 selections compared to the SM predictions.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the V5 selections compared to the SM predictions.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the V5 selections compared to the SM predictions.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the M1 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the M1 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the M2 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the M2 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the M3 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the M3 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for the C1 selection before the cut in the variable shown is applied. The data are compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ distribution for the C1 selection before the cut in the variable shown is applied. The data are compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $p_T$ for the C2 selection. The data are compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured jet multiplicity for the C2 selection. The data are compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the distribution of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

The measured $W$ transverse mass distribution in the $W \rightarrow \mu \nu$ control region for the M1 monojet-like selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $W$ transverse mass distribution in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region for the M1 monojet-like selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured dimuon invariant mass distribution in the $Z \rightarrow \mu \mu$ control region for the M1 monojet-like selection, compared to the background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

The measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in a multijet control sample for the monojet-like analysis. This region is defined with similar $E_T^{miss}$ and leading jet $p_T$ cuts as M1, but releasing the jet-veto and inverting the $\Delta \phi (jet, p_T^{miss})$ cut, now requiring it to be less than 0.4. The data are compared to predictions.

Measured jet multiplicity in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region for the c-tagged analysis, compared to background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured jet multiplicity in the $W \rightarrow \mu \nu$ control region for the c-tagged analysis, compared to background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured jet multiplicity in the $Z \rightarrow ll$ control region for the c-tagged analysis, compared to background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured jet multiplicity in the t-(anti)-t control region for the c-tagged analysis, compared to background predictions. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured dilepton invariant mass in the $Z \rightarrow ll$ control region for the c-tagged analysis. The predictions include the global normalization factors extracted from the fit.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution for the M1 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the impact of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured leading jet $\eta$ distribution for the M1 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the impact of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured $\Delta \phi (jet, p_T^{miss})$ distribution for the M1 selection compared to the SM predictions. For illustration purposes, the impact of two different SUSY scenarios are included.

Measured $E_T^{miss}$ distribution after preselection cuts compared to background predictions.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the C1 c-tagged selection compared to background predictions.

Multiplicity of jets with loose heavy-flavor tags in the C1 selection.

Multiplicity of jets with medium heavy-flavor tags in the C1 selection.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M1 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M2 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M3 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for C1 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for C2 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M1 SR for $\tilde{b}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M2 SR for $\tilde{b}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M3 SR for $\tilde{b}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M1 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + ff' + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M2 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + ff' + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Expected and observed CLs, number of events, acceptance and efficiency for M3 SR for $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + ff' + \tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The expected event yield in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$, $N_{\text{events}}$, is used to calculate $\sigma\times A\times\varepsilon$ and $A\times\varepsilon$. The acceptance $A$ is defined as the percentage of events passing the selection at truth level, and the efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level. The modified efficiency $\varepsilon\prime$ is the ratio of events passing the selection at truth and reconstructed level over the number of events passing the selection at truth level.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE1 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE1 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.05 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.15 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Selection acceptance times efficiency as a function of WPRIME mass at truth level for left- and right-handed WPRIME MC. The total efficiency curves correspond to the sum of the efficiencies of the one b-tag and two b-tag categories.

Cutflow (efficiency with respect to total number of events in %) for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model for hadronic top-quark decays.

Overview of the signal acceptance times efficiency (A x Eff) for the hadronic top-quark decay for both categories, the predicted cross section times branching ratio to TOP BOTTOM, as well as the observed 95% CL limit on the cross section times branching ratio for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model. The expected signal event yields in the two categories for 20.3 fb-1 of 8 TeV data are also shown.