The $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated nuclear modification factor $R_\mathrm{pPb}$ of charm production at midrapidity in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Pairwise (h--$\phi$)/(h--h) ratio vs $\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}} \rangle$ for the higher associated momentum range, $2.5 < p_{\mathrm{T, assoc}} < 4.0 \mathrm{~GeV}/c$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV in the pseudorapidity region $|\eta|<0.8$.

$\Xi_\mathrm{c}^0/\Lambda_c^+$ ratio as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Prompt $\Xi_\mathrm{c}^0$ cross-section integrated in the $2 < p_\mathrm{T} < 12$ GeV/$c$ interval measured in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Prompt $\Xi_\mathrm{c}^0$ $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated cross-section in the $p_\mathrm{T}>0$ interval measured in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Figure 3 top left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 top right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 mid left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 mid right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 bottom left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 bottom right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 4 top left. Expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{G}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 top right. Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{G}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 bottom left. Expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{S}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 bottom right. Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{S}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 6. The $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ spectra and background prediction after nuisance paramter marginalization (post-fit) due to SM diphoton production ($\gamma\gamma$) and fake photon production (j$\gamma$, jj) for the EBEB, combining the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The prediction with a large extra dimensions signal (GRW convention with $M_{S}$ = 9 TeV) is also shown. The pull distributions, normalized to the statistical uncertainty only, are shown underneath the spectra. The last bin contains the overflow of events beyond $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ > 3.5 TeV.

Figure 6. The $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ spectra and background prediction after nuisance paramter marginalization (post-fit) due to SM diphoton production ($\gamma\gamma$) and fake photon production (j$\gamma$, jj) for the EBEE, combining the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The prediction with a large extra dimensions signal (GRW convention with $M_{S}$ = 9 TeV) is also shown. The pull distributions, normalized to the statistical uncertainty only, are shown underneath the spectra. The last bin contains the overflow of events beyond $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ > 3.5 TeV.

Figure 7. The exclusion limit for the clockwork framework over the k--M5 parameter space. The shaded region denotes where the theory becomes nonperturbative. The region below and to the left of the solid line constitutes the excluded region. Expected 1std and 2std limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2018 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2018 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the QCD multijet 3T control region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the ttbar 2T1L control region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the 3M signal region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Observed p-values when considering the tH channel for each year and their combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 2

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 3

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 4

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 5

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 6

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 7

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 8

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 9

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 10

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 11

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 12

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 13

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 14

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 15

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 16

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 17

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 18

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 19

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 20

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 21

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 22

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 23

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 24

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 25

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 26

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 27

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 28

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 29

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 30

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 31

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 32

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 33

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 34

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 35

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 36

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 37

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 38

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 39

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 40

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 41

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 42

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 43

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 44

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 45

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 46

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 47

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 48

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 49

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 50

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 51

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 52

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 53

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 54

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 55

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 56

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 57

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 58

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 59

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 60

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 61

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 62

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 63

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 64

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 65

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 66

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 67

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 68

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 69

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 70

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 71

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 72

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 1b$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The correlation matrix of the fit parameters for the six combined regions, including the signal regions (electron+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, muon+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, dilepton: 2-lepton 1-bjet and 2-lepton 2-bjet inclusive) is shown.

The impact of systematic uncertainties on the fitted signal-strength parameter $\hat{\mu}$ for the combined (six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$) fit of all channels. Only the 15 most significant systematic uncertainties are shown and listed in decreasing order of their impact on $\mu$ on the $y$-axis. The empty (filled) blue/cyan boxes correspond to the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, referring to the upper $x$-axis. The impact of each systematic uncertainty, $\Delta \mu$, is calculated by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter $\theta$ to its best-fit value $\hat{\theta}$ shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \theta(\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \hat{\theta})$. The black points, which refer to the lower $x$-axis, show the pulls of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the fitted parameters $\hat{\theta}$ from their nominal values $\theta_0$, normalized to their nominal uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The black lines show the post-fit uncertainties of the nuisance parameters, relative to their nominal uncertainties, which are indicated by the dashed lines.

Breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-section. The quoted uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit with a group of nuisance parameters fixed to their fitted values and subtracting in quadrature the resulting total uncertainty from the uncertainty of the complete fit. However, the total uncertainty is not the quadratic sum of the grouped impacts, as this approach neglects the correlation among the different groups.

The signal strength $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$, defined as the ratio of the observed signal for the combined six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$.) to the SM expectation with no nPDF effects included, is measured using a binned profile-likelihood method. The parameter $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ is determined by the fit to the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ data distributions in the six signal regions, where the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the leptons and HI jets. Over all 9% uncertainties is observed

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, based on 165 nb$^{-1}$ of data. The central measured value is shown alongside theoretical predictions using various parton distribution functions (PDFs): MCFM TUJU21, MCFM nNNPDF30, MCFM nCTEQ15HQ, and MCFM EPPS21. The green and yellow bands represent the total and statistical uncertainties of the data, respectively. Additional measurements for comparison include the CMS result at 8.16 TeV for p+Pb collisions and an extrapolated ATLAS+CMS result for pp collisions at 8 TeV. Relevant references are indicated: PRL 119 (2017) 242001 and JHEP 07 (2023) 213.

The ATLAS measurement of \( R_{p\text{Pb}} \) as a function of the nuclear modification factor in proton-lead (\( p\) + Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair \( \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16 \) TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\). The black points represent theoretical predictions from various MCFM parton distribution functions (PDFs): TUJU21, nNNPDF30, nCTEQ15HQ, and EPPS21. The green band indicates the total uncertainty of the data, while the yellow band represents the statistical uncertainty. The dashed line at \( R_{p\text{Pb}} = 1 \) shows the expected value in the absence of nuclear modifications.

Unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Unfolded jet girth distribution in PbPb normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded jet girth distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded jet girth distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in PbPb for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Unfolded jet girth distribution in pp normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded jet girth distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded jet girth distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Unfolded jet girth distribution in pp normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded jet girth distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded jet girth distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the jet girth distribution.

Unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. All systematic uncertainties are bin-to-bin fully correlated (allowing for sign-changes bin-to-bin).The covaraince matrices are provided for the statistical uncertainties from data and MC in this HepData record.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in data for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Covariance matrix of the statistical uncertainty in MC for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution in pp for jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection.The bin indices correspond to the bins used in the groomed jet radius distribution.

Ratio of yields in PbPb to pp for the unfolded jet girth distribution normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection. Each uncertainty is symmetrized and added in quadrature.All systematic uncertainties have been obtained assuming the PbPb and pp uncertainties are uncorrelated.

Ratio of yields in PbPb to pp for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.4 selection. Each uncertainty is symmetrized and added in quadrature.All systematic uncertainties have been obtained assuming the PbPb and pp uncertainties are uncorrelated.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Ratio of yields in PbPb to pp for the unfolded jet girth distribution normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. Each uncertainty is symmetrized and added in quadrature.All systematic uncertainties have been obtained assuming the PbPb and pp uncertainties are uncorrelated.

Ratio of yields in PbPb to pp for the unfolded groomed jet radius distribution normalized to the number of jets that pass the $x_J$>0.8 selection. Each uncertainty is symmetrized and added in quadrature.All systematic uncertainties have been obtained assuming the PbPb and pp uncertainties are uncorrelated.The negative (-0.05,0) bin accounts for jets that failed the soft-drop grooming condition.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.4$ < \alpha < $0.44%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.49$ < \alpha < $0.55%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.55$ < \alpha < $0.6%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.6$ < \alpha < $0.7%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.7$ < \alpha < $0.81%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.81$ < \alpha < $3.0%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Two dimensional plot where the Z-axis is the observed (paper Fig. 3) or expected (Supp. Fig. 20) 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section for $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1/9$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.005$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.006$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.007$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.008$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.009$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.01$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.011$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.012$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.013$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.014$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.015$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.016$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.017$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.018$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.019$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.02$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.021$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.022$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.023$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.024$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.025$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Signal fractional efficiencies

Local significance in units of standard deviations in the $(m_\phi/m_X) − m_X$ plane.