Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the CSC category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass for the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ = 0.025 m. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ for VLL Mass of 700 GeV. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed exclusion contour on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the CSC category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the DT category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The product of detector acceptance and analysis selection efficiency in the muon channel as functions of the particle X mass. Three analysis requirements are applied consecutively: event reconstruction, HLT, and final signal selection. The product of detector acceptance and analysis selection efficiencies are shown at each stage in red, blue, and orange, respectively.

Background-only fit to data. The lower panel contains the pull distribution, defined as the difference between the data yield and the background prediction divided by their combined uncertainty (electron channel).

Background-only fit to data. The lower panel contains the pull distribution, defined as the difference between the data yield and the background prediction divided by their combined uncertainty (muon channel).

The systematic uncertainties affecting signal normalization (electron channel).

The systematic uncertainties affecting signal normalization (muon channel).

The 95% CL expected and observed limits on P P --> X --> W gamma as a function of the resonant mass with leptonic decays of W bosons (narrow width).

The 95% CL expected and observed limits on P P --> X --> W gamma as a function of the resonant mass with leptonic decays of W bosons (broad width).

The 95% CL expected and observed limits on P P --> X --> W gamma as a function of the resonant mass with both leptonic and hadronic decays of W bosons (narrow width).

The 95% CL expected and observed limits on P P --> X --> W gamma as a function of the resonant mass with both leptonic and hadronic decays of W bosons (broad width).

The observed local p-values for narrow resonance width hypotheses.

The observed local p-values for broad resonance width hypotheses.

Fit results for the region 2 of pair produced resolved three jet mass ($m_{jjj}$) distribution, after $H_{\rm T}>600$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, sixth jet $p_{\rm T}>50$ GeV, $D^2_{[(6,3)+(3,2)]}<1.0$, $A_m <0.175$, $\Delta>180$ GeV, $D^2_{[3,2]}<0.175$

Fit results for the region 3 of pair produced resolved three jet mass ($m_{jjj}$) distribution, after $H_{\rm T}>600$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, sixth jet $p_{\rm T}>100$ GeV, $D^2_{[(6,3)+(3,2)]}<0.9$, $A_m <0.15$, $\Delta>150$ GeV, $D^2_{[3,2]}<0.2$

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced merged trijets. Acceptance after the selection $p_{\rm T}>300$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, and $\tau_{32,\mathrm{DDT}}<0$ on both leading and subleading jet and $A_m<0.15$ between the two leading jets.

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced merged dijets. Acceptance after the selection $p_{\rm T}>300$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, and $N^1_{2,\mathrm{DDT}}<0$ on both leading and subleading jet and $A_m<0.15$ between the two leading jets.

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced resolved trijets (including overlaps). Acceptance for three regions search requions described in table 1 of the paper.

The geometric acceptance multiplied by the efficiency of the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV selection as a function of the proper decay length c$\tau$ for a scalar particle S with a mass of 40 GeV. The acceptance region for DT is defined by requiring the LLP to decay in the region with |z| < 661 cm and 380 cm < r < 736 cm. The acceptance region for CSC is defined by requiring the LLP decay in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 695.5 cm, and 661 cm < |z| < 1100 cm or in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 270 cm, and 500 cm < |z| < 661 cm. Single CSC cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in CSC; Single DT cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in DT; Double cluster requires both LLP to decay in CSC or DT. The denominator in this plot includes all generated events. The nominator includes events that pass the acceptance requirements above and $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV.

Distributions of the cluster time for signal, where S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ for a proper decay length c$\tau$ of 1 m and mass of 40 GeV, and for a background-enriched sample in data selected by inverting the $N_\text{hits}$ requirement.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m).

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for compared to the OOT background ($t_\text{clusters} < 12.5$ ns). The OOT background is representative of the overall background shape, because the background passing all the selections described above is dominated by pileup and underlying events.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for CSC-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-DT category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 3 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

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

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

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

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

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{0}K^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \e^{+} \e^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

Feynman diagrams of $\mathrm{Z'}\to\mu^{-}\mu^{+}$ with a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson produced via $\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\to\mathrm{Z'}$, with one $\mathrm{b}$ quark and one $\overline{\mathrm{s}}$ quark in the final state.

Distribution of $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})$ as obtained from simulation in events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ passing all the other selection requirements. In this search, we require $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})>175~\mathrm{GeV}$. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the simulation of the SM backgrounds, while the overlaid open histograms illustrate the size and shape of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model described in Eq. (1), for several $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. For illustrative purposes, we choose couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$. The contribution of background processes other than DY and $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ is so small that it is only barely visible at the bottom of the stacked histogram. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. Histograms are normalized to unit area.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}=1$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}\geq 2$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} = 1$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 2$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.25$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.75$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=1$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The dotted curve for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ lies beyond the displayed $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range and is, therefore, not shown. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The dotted curve denotes the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and the dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range preferred from a global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-3j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$SS region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3j region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3jSS region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$ region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-1j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-3j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$SS region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3j region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

Di-tau mass distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3jSS region. Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$ region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-1j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-3j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$SS region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3j region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tuH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3jSS region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(uH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$ region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-1j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{lep}\tau_{had}$-3j region,Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$SS region, Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-2j region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3j region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

BDT output distributions obtained from a signal+background fit to the data for the tcH search in the $t_{h}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$-3jSS region, Rare includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. $\tau_{sub}$ real includes the contribution of fakes for which the sub-leading tau is real. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background". The signal shapes of tt(cH), tH, and their sum are also shown using a normalisation of 2 x $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ of 0.1%.

95% CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$ for the individual searches as well as their combination, assuming $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH}) = 0$. The observed limits are compared with the expected (median) limits under the background-only hypothesis. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 68% and 95% CL intervals around the expected limits, denoted by $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$, respectively.

95% CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ for the individual searches as well as their combination, assuming $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH}) = 0$. The observed limits are compared with the expected (median) limits under the background-only hypothesis. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 68% and 95% CL intervals around the expected limits, denoted by $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$, respectively.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Expected $+2\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Expected $+1\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Expected $-1\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Expected $-2\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fractions in the plane of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{uH})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{cH})$.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Expected $+2\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Expected $+1\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Expected $-1\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Expected $-2\sigma$ upper limits at 95% CL on the anomalous couplings in the plane of $C_{\mathrm{c\phi}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{u\phi}}$.

Predicted and observed yields in each of the analysis regions considered in leptonic channel.

Predicted and observed yields in each of the analysis regions considered in hadronic channel.

Absolute uncertainties on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{qH})$ obtained from the combined fit to the data.

Summary of 95% CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{qH})$, significance and best-fit branching ratio in the signal regions. The values in the tables are in the form of observed(expected).

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to H)B(H\to Z(\eta_c~\text{or}~J/\psi))/$pb. The smaller (larger) quoted ranges around the expected limits represent $\pm 1\sigma$ ($\pm 2\sigma$) fluctuations.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (a) WW signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (b) WZ signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (c) ZZ signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (d) WZ+WW signal region.

Dijet mass distributions for data in the (e) WW+ZZ signal region.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+WZ production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for (c) WW+ZZ production as a function of scalar mass.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WZ production as a function of V' mass

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=1.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW+ZZ production as a function of GKK mass for the bulk RS model with k/M̄Pl=0.5.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for WW production as a function of scalar mass.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for ZZ production as a function of scalar mass.