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.

Target asymmetry for $p\pi^0$ as a function of the polar angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-2600 MeV.

Target asymmetry for $p\pi^0$ as a function of the $p\pi0$ invariant mass for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-2600 MeV.

Target asymmetry for $p\pi^0$ as a function of the $\phi^*$ angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-2600 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of the polar angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of the $\pi^0\pi0$ invariant mass for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of the polar angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $p\pi^0$ as a function of the $p\pi0$ invariant mass for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of the $\phi^*$ angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $p\pi^0$ as a function of the $\phi^*$ angle for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-950 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-800 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 800-950 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 950-1100 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 1100-1250 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-800 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 800-950 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 950-1100 MeV.

Target asymmetries for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 1100-1250 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-800 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $\pi^0\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 800-950 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 650-800 MeV.

Double polarization observables for $p\pi^0$ as a function of $\cos\vartheta$, invariant mass and $\phi^*$ for bins of the incident photon energy in the range of $E_\gamma$ = 800-950 MeV.

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 $\kappa_{Z} = \pm1$, $\kappa_{W} = \mp1$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new spin-2 particle $\mathrm{X}^{(2)}$ which decays to Higgs boson pairs, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X}^{(2)} \to \mathrm{HH})$, given for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 260-1000 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$ which subsequently decay to a pair of photons and a pair of tau leptons, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH} \to \gamma\gamma\tau\tau)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 50-800 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$ which subsequently decay to a pair of photons and a pair of tau leptons, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH} \to \gamma\gamma\tau\tau)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 50-800 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$ which subsequently decay to a pair of photons and a pair of tau leptons, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH} \to \gamma\gamma\tau\tau)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV and $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 50-800 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 70-125 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-800 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 70-125 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV and $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 70-125 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 125-800 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-800 GeV and at particular values of $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 125-800 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for the resonant production of a new scalar particle $\mathrm{X}$ which decays to a SM Higgs boson and a new scalar particle $\mathrm{Y}$, multiplied by the $\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma$ branching fraction, $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to \mathrm{X} \to \mathrm{YH})B(\mathrm{Y} \to \gamma\gamma)$. The limits are shown for different values of $m_\mathrm{X}$ in the range 300-1000 GeV and $m_\mathrm{Y}$ in the range 125-800 GeV.

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.

JPSI v2 in Au+Au collisions as a function of pT (GeV/c) for 10%--40% centrality with pT binned by [0, 2], [2, 5], and [5, 10] GeV/c.