Numbers of observed and background events for SR3L low for each bin of the distribution in Meff. The table corresponds to Fig. 4(d). The statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined for the predicted numbers.

Numbers of observed and background events for SR3L high for each bin of the distribution in Meff. The table corresponds to Fig. 4(e). The statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined for the predicted numbers.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

The efficiencies are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

The efficiencies are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into b s and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

The efficiencies are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

The efficiencies are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

The acceptances (in percent, %) are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

The limits on observed cross section are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct pair production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct pair production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

The limits on observed cross sections are calculated for all simplified models. The simplified models are for direct pair production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

The signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop)-20 GeV.

The signal event yields are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

The signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

The signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

Experimental uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

Statistical uncertainties on the signal event yields are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W ^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluino), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the observed and expected values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into t tbar t tbar chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 5a in the paper). This particular model assumes that top quark is much heavier than gluino.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the observed and expected values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks that decay into two steps into q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6c in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the values are given for the five signal regions and their combination. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos that decay via a two-step process into q q q q W Z W Z chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6b in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay via sleptons into q q q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6d in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct pair-production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t stop. Consequently, a top squark squark decays into b chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 5b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(stop) < m(gluion), m(chi1^0)=6 GeV, and m(chi1^(+-))=118 GeV.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos. A gluino decays into t c chi1^0 (see Fig. 5c in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0) = m(stop) - 20 GeV.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7b in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=2(chi1^0).

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of bottom squarks. A bottom squark decays into t chi1^(+-) and chi1^(+-) --> W^(+-) chi1^0 (see Fig. 7a in the paper). This particular model assumes that m(chi1^0)=60 GeV.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of squarks. Squarks decay into q q l l (l l) chi1^0 chi1^0 + neutrinos (see Fig. 6e in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all GMSB models (see Fig. 8c in the paper). For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The model assumes mmess=250 TeV, m5=3, mu>0, and Cgrav=1.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos and top squarks. Top squarks undergo R-parity violating decays into bs and gluinos decay into t stop (see Fig. 5d in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all mSUGRA/CMSSM models with bRPV (see Fig. 8b in the paper). For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, mu>0, and bRPV.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified extra dimension model (see Fig. 8d in the paper). For each model, the expected and observed values are given.

The confidence levels are calculated for all simplified models. For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The simplified model is for direct production of gluinos that decay into q q q q W W chi1^0 chi1^0 (see Fig. 6a in the paper).

The confidence levels are calculated for all mSUGRA models (see Fig. 8a in the paper). For each model, the expected and observed values are given. The model assumes tan(beta)=30, A0=2m0, and mu>0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

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

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower mass requirement for signal regions.

Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.

Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.

p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.

p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.

Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stau search.

Upper cross-section limit in stau search.

Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.

Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.

Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.

Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.

Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).

ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).

Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).

Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).

Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).

Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).

Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.

Distribution of $m_{T}(W)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section $\sigma(pp\to N_\mu)$ and the branching ratio $B(N_\mu\to \mu q\bar{q}^{\prime})$ in electron channel, compared with theoretical predictions for HCMN model calculated with CalcHEP.

The 95% CL exclusion curve in the parameters' space, obtained in the analysis of the electron channel.

The 95% CL exclusion curve in the parameters' space, obtained in the analysis of the muon channel.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Invariant mass distribution of the diphoton pairs for the elastic selection region with events satisfying a < 0.005 (signal contribution is magnified by a factor 5000).

Predicted number of events having an elastic diphoton pair in association with a pair of protons observed within the range where the proton detectors have a radiation inefficiency less than 10%. The yields where the two-photon and two-proton systems mass and rapidity are matching at 2 and 3$\sigma$ are also quoted. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

Predicted number of events having an elastic diphoton pair in association with a pair of protons observed within the range where the proton detectors have a radiation inefficiency less than 10%. The yields where the two-photon and two-proton systems mass and rapidity are matching at 2 and 3$\sigma$ are also quoted. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% CL expected and observed frequentist upper limit for the LbL cross section within the $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$ search region.

95% CL expected and observed frequentist upper limit for the LbL cross section within the $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$ search region.

95% expected and observed one-dimensional limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters, when the other parameter is set to zero. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed one-dimensional limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters, when the other parameter is set to zero. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters. The parametric elliptic form is assumed: $a_0\zeta_1^2+a_1\zeta_1\zeta_2+a_2\zeta_2^2=1$. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters. The parametric elliptic form is assumed: $a_0\zeta_1^2+a_1\zeta_1\zeta_2+a_2\zeta_2^2=1$. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of the invariant mass of the ZZ system

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of azimuthal separation of the two Z bosons

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of ∆R separation of the two Z bosons

Measured fiducial cross section for each data sample and combined. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is experimental systematic, and the third is associated with the integrated luminosity.

Measured total σ(pp → ZZ) cross section for each data sample and combined. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is experimental systematic, the third is theoretical systematic. The fourth uncertainty is associated with the integrated luminosity.

Expected and observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits on aTGC parameters. The corresponding constrains on EFT parameters are estimated using the transformation from Ref. [65].

Expected and observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits on aTGC parameters. The corresponding constrains on EFT parameters are estimated using the transformation from Ref. [65].