$\rho_{3}$ 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.

Breakdown of expected and observed yields in the electroweak search Int, Low, and OffShell signal regions after a simultaneous fit to the signal regions and control regions. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included.

Breakdown of expected and observed yields in the four edge signal regions, integrated over the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic sources.

Breakdown of expected and observed yields in the three on-$Z$ signal regions after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic sources.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VR3L-STR without a fit to the data. The 'Other' category includes the negligible contributions from $t\bar{t}$ and $Z/\gamma^*$+jets processes. The hatched band contains the statistical uncertainty and the theoretical systematic uncertainties of the $WZ$/$ZZ$ prediction, which are the dominant sources of uncertainty. No fit is performed. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294]. The grey numbers indicate the observed 95\% CLs upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294]. The grey numbers indicate the observed 95$\%$ CLs upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

The combined $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution of VRLow-STR and SRLow-STR (left), and the same region with the $\Delta\phi(\boldsymbol{j}_{1,2},\boldsymbol{\mathit{p}}_{ ext{T}}^{ ext{miss}})<0.4$ requirement, used as a control region to normalize the $Z/\gamma^*+\mathrm{jets}$ process (right). Separate fits for the SR and VR are performed, as for the results in the paper, and the resulting distributions are merged. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins contain the overflow.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

Table 36: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-OffShell_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 36: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-OffShell_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 37: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-OffShell_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 37: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-OffShell_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 38: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 38: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 39: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 39: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 40: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low-2-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 40: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Low-2-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 41: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Int_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 41: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Int_a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 42: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Int_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 42: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-Int_b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 43: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_16a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 43: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_16a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 44: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_16b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 44: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_16b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 45: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_8a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 45: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_8a-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 46: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_8b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 46: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-High_8b-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 47: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-1J-High-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 47: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-1J-High-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 48: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-llbb-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Table 48: Cutflow of expected events in the region SR-llbb-EWK. Requirements below the line are specific to this region. On the Generator Filter line, the total number of unweighted events simulated is given in brackets. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. For C1N2 models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $7~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons and for C1N2 models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass it also requires $75~\mathrm{GeV}$ of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. For GMSB models, the Generator Filter requires at least two $3~\mathrm{GeV}$ leptons. For on-shell C1N2 models, the `Forced Decays' require each Z boson to decay to a charged lepton pair (electron, muon, or tau) and each W boson to decay hadronically. For off-shell C1N2 models, each neutralino is forced to produce a charged lepton pair in its decay, and each chargino can produce any fermion pair. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~\mathrm{GeV}$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~\mathrm{GeV}$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

The combined $m_{jj}$ distribution of CR-Z-EWK and SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in CR-Z-met-EWK (right), which removes the upper limit of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}) < 9$ from the definition of CR-Z-EWK. This $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ tail overlaps other control and validation regions, but not signal regions. The arrows indicate the signal region SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ phase space which is not included in CR-Z-EWK (right). All EWK search control and signal regions are included in the fit. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The theoretical uncertainties from CR-Z-EWK are applied to CR-Z-met-EWK. The last bins contain the overflow.

The combined $m_{jj}$ distribution of CR-Z-EWK and SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in CR-Z-met-EWK (right), which removes the upper limit of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}) < 9$ from the definition of CR-Z-EWK. This $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ tail overlaps other control and validation regions, but not signal regions. The arrows indicate the signal region SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ phase space which is not included in CR-Z-EWK (right). All EWK search control and signal regions are included in the fit. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The theoretical uncertainties from CR-Z-EWK are applied to CR-Z-met-EWK. The last bins contain the overflow.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.

Fit results for the amplitudes of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,3) as a function of centrality

Fit results for the yTSigma_0 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,3) as a function of centrality

Fit results for the amplitudes of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality

Fit results for the yT_1 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality

Fit results for the yT_2 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH mu Majorana model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Cutflow for six simulated signal channels showing the weighted number of expected events based on the single-flavour mixing model in the Majorana limit. Each column uses the generated signal sample with the mass hypothesis $m_N = 10$ GeV and proper decay length $c\tau_N = 10$ mm.

Cutflow for the six channels in data showing the number of events passing each successive signal selection for Majorana HNLs.

The event selection efficiency for each mass-lifetime point in all six studied channels. Shown is the fraction of the produced MC simulation events that pass all signal region selections. An entry of 0 indicates no events were selected.

The dominant signal uncertainty is due to differences in reconstruction of displaced vertices and tracks between data and MC. This is evaluated by comparing $K^{0}_{S} \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ event yields in the VR and in MC produced with Pythia8.186 in bins of $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $r_\mathrm{DV}$. The data/MC ratio is normalized to the bin nearest the IP where the tracking and vertexing reconstruction algorithms are expected to be most robust. The symmetrized difference from 1.0 is applied to each signal vertex as a per-event systematic variation.

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

The total displaced vertexing efficiency as a function of $r_{DV}$ for the custom configuration used in this analysis. The definition of the secondary vertex efficiency can be found in defined in \cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-013}. The efficiency is shown for $\mu-\mu\mu$, $\mu-\mu e$ and $\mu-ee$ signals with $m_N=10$~GeV and $c\tau_N=10$~mm.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Efficiency corrected $\phi$-meson yields as a function of cos$\theta$* and corresponding fits with Eq.1 in the method section.

Efficiency and acceptance corrected $K^{*0}$-meson yields as a function of cos$\theta$* and corresponding fits with Eq.4 in the method section.

$\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ obtained from 1st- and 2nd-order event planes. The red stars (gray squares) show the $\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ as a function of beam energy, obtained with the 2nd-order (1st-order) EP.

$\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ with respect to different quantization axes. $\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ as a function of beam energy, for the out-of-plane direction (stars) and the in-plane direction (diamonds). Curves are fits based on theoretical calculations with a $\phi$-meson field. The corresponding $G_s^{(y)}$ values obtained from the fits are shown in the legend.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

Global spin alignment measurement of $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ vector mesons in Au+Au collisions at 0-20\% centrality. The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for $K^{*0}$-meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.

Global spin alignment measurement of $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ vector mesons in Au+Au collisions at 0-20\% centrality. The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for $K^{*0}$-meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles and their difference for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles and their difference for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles and their difference for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of triangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of quadrangular flow of particles, antiparticles for 0-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} k^{+}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} k^{+}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} p^{+}$, for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} p^{+}$, for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} k^{+}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} k^{+}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} p^{+}$, for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} p^{+}$, for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} K^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{+}$, for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} k^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} k^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{2} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3}ki^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3}ki^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{3} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} \pi^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} p^{-}$ for 0-10, 10-40 and 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 10-40 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The transverse momentum dependence of $v_{4} k^{-}$ for 40-80 central Au+Au collisions.

The centrality dependence of $v_{2} (\pi, K, p) $ for Au+Au collisions.

The centrality dependence of $v_{2} (\pi, K, p) $ for Au+Au collisions.

The centrality dependence of $v_{3} (\pi, K, p) $ for Au+Au collisions.

The centrality dependence of $v_{3} (\pi, K, p) $ for Au+Au collisions.

Summary of the total efficiencies. Quoted uncertainties correspond to statistical uncertainties of the simulated samples used. For the $B_c^+\to J/\psi \pi^+$ channel, the efficiency $\epsilon_{B_c^+\to J/\psi \pi^+}$ entering the equations for $R_{D_s^{(*)+}/\pi^+}$ is shown, while the efficiency for the full dataset is not defined.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

Distribution of the low-E_T per-event BDT in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Distribution of the high-E_T per-event BDT outputs in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the high-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the low-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final high-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final low-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

95% CL expected and observed limits on the BR of SM Higgs bosons to pairs of neutral LLPs (B_{H&rarr; ss}), showing the &plusmn; 1 &sigma; (green) and &plusmn; 2 &sigma; (yellow) expected limit bands, as well as a comparison with the results from previous ATLAS searches [36,78]. The cross-section for SM Higgs boson gluon--gluon fusion production is assumed to be 48.6 pb.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 200 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 400 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the high-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in decay position in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the high-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.5%, the results are typically accurate to around 25%, but below this the efficiency can be overestimated and therefore should not be used for re-interpration.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the low-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the low-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.15%, the results are typically accurate to around 33%, and below this the efficiency is typically accurate up to a factor of 3.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi=125$~\GeV\ for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, ``MDT 1/2'' represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and ``L/S'' indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=200$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=400$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.