Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=250$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Differential cross section at W= 1.720 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.750 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.775 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.795 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.815 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.835 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.855 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.630 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.660 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.690 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.720 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.750 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.775 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.795 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.815 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.835 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.855 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.690 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.720 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.750 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.775 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.795 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.815 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.835 GeV

Differential cross section at W= 1.855 GeV

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the inclusive $N_{jets} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the exclusive $N_{jets} = 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections as a function of $N_{jets}$ in the extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on vertex function parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on EFT parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $ee$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $e^{\pm}e^{\mp}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+, D*+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

v_{2}{EP} vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8 The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{EP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

v_{2}{SP} vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{SP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{SP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{SP} in the 60% small-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

Ratio of v_{2}{SP} in the 20% large-q_{2}^{V0A} sample to the unbiased sample vs. p_{T} of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |eta|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D0 mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of prompt D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 10-30% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 60% small-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

Ratio of the p_{T} distribution in the 20% large-q_{2}^{TPC} sample to the unbiased sample of average prompt D0, D+ mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02 TeV in the centrality class 30-50% in the rapidity interval |y|<0.8.

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K+ and all kT, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K+ and kT < 0.85 GeV/c, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K+ and kT > 0.85 GeV/c, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K- and all kT, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K- and kT < 0.85 GeV/c, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

C(k*)/(quadratic baseline) for K0s K- and kT > 0.85 GeV/c, systematic uncertainties negligible for k*>0.06 GeV/c

R vs. kT for 7 TeV pp averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- with Achasov2 parameters

R vs. kT for 2.76 TeV/nucleon Pb Pb averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- with Achasov2 parameters

lambda/purity vs. kT for 7 TeV pp averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- with Achasov2 parameters

lambda/purity vs. kT for 2.76 TeV/nucleon Pb Pb averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- with Achasov2 parameters

R vs. kT for 7 TeV pp averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- and with Achasov2 parameters

R vs. kT for 7 TeV pp --> K0s K0s averaged over event multiplicity

R vs. kT for 7 TeV pp --> K+- K+- averaged over event multiplicity and averaged between K+ and K-

lambda/purity vs. kT for 7 TeV pp averaged over K0s K+ and K0s K- and with Achasov2 parameters

lambda/purity vs. kT for 7 TeV pp --> K0s K0s averaged over event multiplicity

lambda/purity vs. kT for 7 TeV pp --> K+- K+- averaged over event multiplicity and averaged between K+ and K-

Photon-jet pT balance distributions (1/Ng)(dN/dxJg) in pp events (blue, reproduced on all panels) and Pb+Pb events (red) with each panel denoting a different centrality selection. These panels show results with pTg = 158-200 GeV. Total systematic uncertainties are shown as boxes, while statistical uncertainties are shown with vertical bars.

Selected comparisons of the nominal results in pp (blue) and 0-10% Pb+Pb (red) collisions with the central values obtained using a different photon-jet signal definition. Comparison of the nominal results (with DeltaPhi > 7pi/8) with those obtained using DeltaPhi > 3pi/4 for the pTg = 63.1-79.6 GeV range. Boxes indicate total systematic uncertainties, while vertical bars indicate statistical uncertainties.

Selected comparisons of the nominal results in pp (blue) and 0-10% Pb+Pb (red) collisions with the central values obtained using a different photon-jet signal definition. Comparison of the nominal results (inclusive jet selection) with those obtained using a photon-plus-leading-jet selection for the pTg = 100-158 GeV range. Boxes indicate total systematic uncertainties, while vertical bars indicate statistical uncertainties.