Invariant mass of the lepton pair plus jet system, for data, background (pre- and post-reweighting) and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses (for $a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection but not the classification NN requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.

Regression NN output variable, for data, reweighted background, and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses ($a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection, including a $120<m_{\ell\ell j}<140$ GeV requirement, but not the classification NN output variable requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.

Classification NN output variable, for data, reweighted background, and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses ($a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection, including a $120<m_{\ell\ell j}<140$ GeV requirement, but not the classification NN output variable requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.

Invariant mass of the lepton pair plus jet system for data, reweighted background and its systematic uncertainties (only "up" variations are shown). Events are required to pass the complete event selection (preselection and classification NN requirement). The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing this selection. The experimental uncertainty combines all the relevant jet uncertainties assuming they are completely uncorrelated. The error bars represent the data sample's statistical uncertainty and the grey bands represent the background statistical uncertainty. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the pre-fit background prediction.

Invariant mass of the lepton pair plus jet system for data, reweighted background, and 0.5 GeV signal hypotheses. Events are required to pass the complete event selection (preselection and classification NN requirement). The background shape and normalization come from the fit to the data. The signal includes only $gg$ decays, its shape comes from the fit, and it is normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow Za)=100\%$. The error bars represent the data sample's statistical uncertainty and the grey bands represent the full background model uncertainty after the fit. The lower panel shows the per-bin signal significance, $(N_\text{data}-N_\text{MC})\,\text{\Large{/}}\sqrt{\sigma_\text{data}^2+\sigma_\text{MC}^2}$. The post-fit background uncertainty is calculated from a fit under the background-only hypothesis. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.

Observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H \to Za)=100\%$ for $\mathcal{B}(a \to gg)=100\%$, and the expectation under the background-only hypothesis together with its $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ intervals. The weaker limits from the previous version of the analysis (PRL 125(2020) 221802) are also shown. Linear interpolation is used to set limits between the mass points for which MC signal samples were generated.

Observed 95$\%$ confidence level upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H \to Za)=100\%$ for $\mathcal{B}(a\rightarrow q\bar{q})=100\%$, and the expectation under the background-only hypothesis together with its $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ intervals. The weaker limits from the previous version of the analysis (PRL 125(2020) 221802) are also shown. Linear interpolation is used to set limits between the mass points for which MC signal samples were generated.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in an $(X,T)$ doublet (50% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 50% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in a $T$ singlet (50% $T\rightarrow Wb$, 25% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 25% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B for 100% $B\rightarrow Zb$.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a $(B,Y)$ doublet (50% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 50% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a B singlet (50% $B\rightarrow Wt$, 25% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 25% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ double-tag 1 signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ $V$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ no-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $VV$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $H$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Invariant mass $m_{J}$ of the resonance candidates in the region defined with forward photon $\eta_{\gamma} > 1.3$ and anti-tagged large-$R$ jet after the fit to data under the background-only hypothesis. The total systematic uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Three representative $Z^{`}$ signal distributions are overlaid as red lines. The signal is shown for $g_q=0.2$ with production cross sections of 309 fb, 143 fb, and 34.2 fb for $m_{Z^{`}}=(20,~50,~\text{and}~125~\text{GeV}$), respectively.

Observed (expected) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the coupling strength $g_q$ of a new vector $Z^{`}$ particle decaying to a $q\bar q$ pair for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where decay rates for all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the product of the $Z^{`}$ production production cross section, branching ratio for $Z^{`}\to q\bar q$ and acceptance ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) of a new $Z^{`}$ resonance for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

The measured differential cross-sections and the predictions from the GM-VFNS calculation for the $D_s^\pm$ meson in bins of $p_T$ for $|\eta| < 2.5$. The statistical, systematic (excluding branching ratio) and branching ratio uncertainties are shown separately for data, while the total theory uncertainties are shown for GM-VFNS.

Inclusive $D^\pm$ meson production cross-sections in different fiducial volumes defined by $|\eta|<2.5$ and different $p_T$ regions. For the ATLAS measurements, the statistical, systematic (excluding branching ratio) and branching ratio uncertainties are shown separately; for the theoretical predictions, the total theoretical uncertainties are shown.

Inclusive $D_s^\pm$ meson production cross-sections in different fiducial volumes defined by $|\eta|<2.5$ and different $p_T$ regions. For the ATLAS measurements, the statistical, systematic (excluding branching ratio) and branching ratio uncertainties are shown separately; for the theoretical predictions, the total theoretical uncertainties are shown.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the signal region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron and WIMP-proton scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with axial-vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Observed and expected exclusions at $95\%$ CL on the Horndeski dark-energy model for $m_{\phi}=0.1$ GeV and $c_{i\neq 2}=0$, $c_{2}=1$, expressed in terms of the visible cross section as a function of the suppression scale $M_{2}$.

$95\%$ CL observed and expected lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions $n$, considering nominal LO signal cross sections.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the coupling $c_{\stackrel{\sim}{\smash{G}}}$ as a function of the effective scale $f_a$ for ALP mass of 1 MeV. The bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ theory uncertainties in the observed limit and the $\pm 1\sigma$and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of the expected limit in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL limits are computed with no suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > f_a^2$.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Inferred 95% CL limits on the WIMP annihilation rate as a function of WIMP mass, for the pseudoscalar mediator model. The annihilation rate is defined as the product of cross section $\sigma$ and relative velocity $v_{rel}$, averaged over the DM velocity distribution ($\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle$). Both the $qq$ and $gg$ annihilation channels are considered in the calculation of the annihilation rate

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_A}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_P}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Contribution to the total SR background uncertainty in exclusive bins of the SR, as obtained from the CR-only fit. In the table, the contribution of each source of systematic is shown as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions represented by the corresponding nuisance parameters.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM12.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM12.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 150 GeV is applied.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 350 GeV is applied.

Data compared to the SM prediction in each region of the positive \lam{} analysis, after the fit to data. The shaded bands represent the total post-fit uncertainty on the prediction.

Fit results in the ($\kappa_{Z}$, $\kappa_{W}$) plane, using the negative-$\lambda_{WZ}$ analysis. The results are overlaid with the confidence regions (shown in blue) from a separate fit using a combination of the Higgs boson measurements collected in Nature 607 (2022) 52. This fit assumes that all Higgs boson couplings besides the ones represented are positive, and that only SM particles contribute to loop processes. Confidence regions are constructed from the log-likelihood ratio $\Lambda_{LR}=-2\ln(L/L_{max})$, where $L_{\max}$ is the likelihood for the best-fit point, which is shown as a black dot for the VBF $WH$ analysis or a blue dot for the Higgs combination. The $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, and $5\sigma$ regions are defined by $\Lambda_{LR}$ values smaller than 2.30, 6.18, and 28.7, respectively. The SM value is marked with a star, while green triangles mark the points with $\kappa_{Z} = \pm1$, $\kappa_{W} = \mp1$.

Figure 8(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 8(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 9 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta \phi$ between the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the invariant mass of the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell ight) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 12 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 18 & 24) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 4.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 19 & 25) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 9.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 20 & 26) for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 5.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 21 & 27) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 10.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 22 & 28) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 11.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 23 & 29) for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 6.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 12.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 13.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 14.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 15.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 16.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 17.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 12.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 13.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 14.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 15.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 16.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 17.

Source radius $r_0$ as a function of〈$m_\mathrm{T}$〉for the assumption of a purely Gaussian source. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonne v18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions with the strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius $r_{core}$ as a function of〈$m_{T}$〉for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius as a function of $r_\mathrm{core}$ for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius $r_{core}$ as a function of〈$m_{T}$〉for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius as a function of $r_\mathrm{core}$ for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

A plot identical to Fig. 5, where the red p–Λ points are obtained by using an Usmani potential tuned to point iv) described in Table 1 in Phys.Lett.B 850 (2024) 138550

I_{AA} of Au+Au 0%-15% collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV for R = 0.5 of pi^{0}+jet with E_{T,trig}= 11-15 GeV.

Yield Ratio R=0.2/R=0.5 of Au+Au 0%-15% collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV of gamma_{dir}+jet with E_{T,trig}= 15-20 GeV.

Yield Ratio R=0.2/R=0.5 of Au+Au 0%-15% collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV of pi^{0}+jet with E_{T,trig}= 11-15 GeV.

Yield Ratio R=0.2/R=0.5 of p+p collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV of gamma_{dir}+jet with E_{T,trig}= 15-20 GeV.

Yield Ratio R=0.2/R=0.5 of p+p collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV of pi^{0}+jet with E_{T,trig}= 11-15 GeV.

The Charged-hadron yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The K^{0}_{S} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The #Lambda yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The #Xi^{-} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The K^{0}_{S} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The #Lambda yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The #Xi^{-} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in p+Pb collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in p+Pb collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in p+Pb collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in p+Pb collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.