Comparisons of the data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass in the ANN-based VBF signal region. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the VBF signal region and the WZ-QCD and ZZ VBF control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width

Comparisons of the observed data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass using the cut-based VBF selection. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the VBF cut-based signal region and the WZ-QCD and ZZ VBF control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width.

Comparisons of the observed data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass using the cut-based VBF selection. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the VBF cut-based signal region and the WZ-QCD and ZZ VBF control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width.

Drell-Yan signal region selection cutflow for a simulated W' in the HVT model A with m_W' = 1 TeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

Drell-Yan signal region selection cutflow for a simulated W' in the HVT model A with m_W' = 1 TeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

VBF signal region selection cutflow for a simulated W' in the HVT model C with m_W' = 500 GeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

VBF signal region selection cutflow for a simulated W' in the HVT model C with m_W' = 500 GeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

VBF signal region selection cutflow for a simulated H5+ in the GM model with m_H5+ = 450 GeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

VBF signal region selection cutflow for a simulated H5+ in the GM model with m_H5+ = 450 GeV. The unweighted number of events is shown.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof the HVT W' in the Drell-Yan signal region for different mass points and for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof the HVT W' in the Drell-Yan signal region for different mass points and for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF H5+ selection after the ANN-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF H5+ selection after the ANN-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF HVT W' selection after the ANN-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF HVT W' selection after the ANN-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF H5+ selection after the cut-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF H5+ selection after the cut-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF HVT W' selection after the cut-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

The acceptancetimes efficiencyof VBF HVT W' selection after the cut-based VBF selection at different mass points for the individual channels and the sum of all channels. The uncertainty includes both statistical and experimental systematic components.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the Drell-Yan production of a W' boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT Model A with g_V=1 and Model B with g_V=$ are also shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the Drell-Yan production of a W' boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT Model A with g_V=1 and Model B with g_V=3 are also shown.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the VBF production of a W' boson in the HVT with parameter c_F=0, as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT VBF model with different values of the coupling parameters g_V and c_H are also shown.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the VBF production of a W' boson in the HVT with parameter c_F=0, as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT VBF model with different values of the coupling parameters g_V and c_H are also shown.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sin(thetaH) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the ANN VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sin(thetaH) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the VBF production of a W' boson in the HVT with parameter c_F=0, as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT VBF model with different values of the coupling parameters g_V and c_H are also shown.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) for the VBF production of a W' boson in the HVT with parameter c_F=0, as a function of its mass. The LO theory predictions for HVT VBF model with different values of the coupling parameters g_V and c_H are also shown.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sigma * B(W' -> WZ) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sin(thetaH) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Using the cut-based VBF selection, observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on sin(thetaH) of the GM model as a function of m_H_5.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.

Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^u\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^u\rightarrow be)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar down-type LQs decaying into top quarks and muons or bottom quarks and neutrinos depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^d\rightarrow t\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for scalar down-type LQs decaying into top quarks and electrons or bottom quarks and neutrinos depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}^d\rightarrow te)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{YM}\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{YM}\rightarrow be)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{min}\rightarrow b\mu)$.

Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for vector LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons depending on the signal mass, $m_{LQ}$, and $\mathcal{B}(vLQ_{mix}^{min}\rightarrow be)$.

Cut-flow for the four models containing scalar LQs at a mass of $m_{LQ}=1300$ GeV and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}\rightarrow q_3\ell)=0.5$.

Cut-flow for the four models containing vector LQs at a mass of $m_{LQ}=1300$ GeV and $\mathcal{B}(LQ_{mix}\rightarrow q_3\ell)=0.5$.

Distribution of the missing transverse energy in CRTop. The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Distribution of the dijet invariant mass in the signal region, shown together with the parameterized background model (labelled "Bkg Model"). For reference, the MC prediction for the SM background is also shown (labelled "SM MC"). The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The signal region is defined to have dijet invariant mass > 20 GeV. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 65$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 95$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 110$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 20$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 30$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Unweighted and weighted number of events after each stage of selection for the NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}) = (45,10,80)$ GeV and the Z boson decaying to $e^{+}e^{-}, \;\mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The weighted number of events corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $139 \;\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. The "skimming selection" required either a single electron or muon with $p_{T} > 100\;$ GeV or a pair of electrons or muons each with $p_{T} > 20\;$ GeV. The preselection requirements include the trigger, absence of a bad jet or bad muon, and two leptons, where a lepton is either an electron or a muon.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+b-jet invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The 2b-jet invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+e invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+e invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+$\mu$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+$\mu$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times acceptance ($A$), efficiency ($\epsilon$), and branching ratio ($B$) for Gaussian-shaped signals with different signal widths. The limits are calculated for events with at least one lepton with pT > 60 GeV in the 10 pb AR. Two width hypotheses are shown; $\sigma X / mX = 0$ and $\sigma X / mX = 0.15$. In both cases, the detector resolution for jets is included in the simulation of signal samples. The $\pm1 \sigma$ and $\pm2 \sigma$ bands around the expected limit are shown for $\sigma X / mX = 0$ signals. Mass points are spaced 5% apart, relative to the preceding point, starting at 0.3 TeV.

Distributions of the anomaly score from the AE for data and five benchmark BSM models. Their legends, from top to bottom, are; (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$, with the $H^{+}$ mass of 2 TeV; (2) a 6 TeV Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a 4 TeV $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ with a mass of 0.5 TeV; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow WZ' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$, with the $W'$ mass of 6.2 TeV and the $Z'$ mass of 6 TeV; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$ with a mass of 6 TeV. The distributions for the BSM models are smoothed to remove fluctuations due to low MC event counts. The vertical lines indicate the start of the three anomaly regions (ARs). The labels of the three ARs indicate the visible cross section for hypothetical processes yielding the same number of events as observed in the 140 $fb^{-1}$ dataset. The AE is applied to preselected events without any requirements on invariant mass distributions.

Invariant mass distributions of $j+Y$ for $M_{jY}$ > 0.3 TeV after preselection along with the fit from Eq.(1). The fit is represented by red lines, and the associated uncertainties are indicated by yellow bands. The lower panels show the bin-by-bin significances of deviations from the fit, calculated as $(d_{\textit{i}} - f_{\textit{i}}) / \delta_{\textit{i}}$, where $d_{\textit{i}}$ is the data yield, $f_{\textit{i}}$ is the fit value, and $\delta_{i}$ is the uncertainty of data in the $\textit{i}$-th bin

Distributions of the anomaly score for data and several anomaly scenarios. The example BSM model (shown with the dashed blue lines) is the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow WZ' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$. The mass of $W'$ is set to 2.2 TeV and the mass of the $Z'$ is set to 2 TeV. This model leads to the final state of one lepton, two jets, and small missing transverse energy that is similar to the SM backgrounds. The other histograms represent events from the same model with artificial modifications to represent anomalous events; (1) "Anomaly 1" is the case where all jets beyond the second jet ($N_{j}$ > 2) are replaced with photons; (2) "Anomaly 2" is the case where all jets beyond the second jet are replaced with $b$-jets; (3) "Anomaly 3" is the case of low-multiplicity events where all jets beyond the second jet are removed. The histograms are normalized to unit. The left peak near log(Loss) = -9 visible in Anomaly 1 and 2 is from the events without a third jet.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T},3l}$ in the JNLow SR after the background-only fit. The uncertainty on the expected number of background events includes all statistical and systematic post-fit uncertainties with the correlations between various background sources taken into account.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the Q0 SR after the background-only fit. The uncertainty on the expected number of background events includes all statistical and systematic post-fit uncertainties with the correlations between various background sources taken into account.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the Q2 SR after the background-only fit. The uncertainty on the expected number of background events includes all statistical and systematic post-fit uncertainties with the correlations between various background sources taken into account.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T},3l}$ in the ZL-CR after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T},3l}$ in the Fake-CR after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the Q0 DB-CR after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the Q0 RT-CR after the background-only fit.

Expected and observed exclusion limit for the combination of the two- (from Ref. EXOT-2018-33), three- and four-lepton channels, for the type-III seesaw process with the corresponding one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands, showing the 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section.

Expected and observed 95% ( $CL_s$ ) exclusion limits in the three lepton channel for the type-III seesaw process with the corresponding one- and two-standard-deviation bands, showing the 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section.

Expected and observed 95% ( $CL_s$ ) exclusion limits in the four lepton channel for the type-III seesaw process with the corresponding one- and two-standard-deviation bands, showing the 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section.

Cross-sections of signal Monte Carlo samples for each mass point considered in this analysis. Leading order cross-sections ( $\sigma_{LO}$ ) are computed by the generator and then rescaled to next-to-leading cross-sections ( $\sigma_{NLO+NLL}$ ), with their corresponding uncertainties, using information taken from Refs. C1C1 and N2C1.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the ZL SR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the ZLVeto SR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the JNLow SR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the Q0 SR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the Q2 SR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the ZL CR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the Q0-DB CR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected signal and background yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass hypothesis in the Q0-RT CR. Preselection represents events with at least three leptons.

Expected background yields and observed data after the background-only fit, in the three-lepton CRs and VRs.

Expected background yields and observed data after the background-only fit, in the four-lepton CRs and VRs.

Expected and observed 95% ( $CL_s$ ) exclusion limits in the three and four lepton channels for the type-III seesaw process with the corresponding one- and two-standard-deviation bands, showing the 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section.

Distribution of $m(e^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the electron-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\mu^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the muon-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\ell^{\pm},\ell^{\prime \pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the three-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Event yield in the four-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-electron channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for muon-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Three-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Four-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark, Drell-Yan, and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

Signal selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) times acceptance ($A$) as a function of $H^{\pm}$. The estimated $\epsilon\times A$ arises from the lepton selection and triggering (∼30%) as well as jet selection and flavour tagging (∼10% or lower). The decrease of $\epsilon\times A$ for $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 120 GeV and higher is expected from the kinematic constraint on the $H^{\pm}$ decay products due to the top-quark mass.