Self-Normalized $J/\psi$ yields in the same arms before and after dimuon subtraction and the comparison with PYTHIA 8 simulations

Self-normalized $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi$ yields ratio as a function of Self-normalized $N_{ch}$ in the same arms

Self-normalized $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi$ yields ratio as a function of Self-normalized $N_{ch}$ in opposite arms

Post-fit distribution of the GNN score evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 400 GeV in the validation region in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets. These regions do not enter the fit. The post-fit background prediction is obtained using the post-fit nuisance parameters from the background-only fit in the control and signal regions.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t})\times B(S_8\rightarrow t\bar{t})$ production cross-section as a function of $m_{S_8}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states. The expected limits from the individual 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML analyses are also shown.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets and four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV,in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed i.e.the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e. the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

The cutflow table for $N1$ and $N2$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 0.1 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SC = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

The cutflow table for $N3$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 10 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SS = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with electron neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with muon neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with tau neutrinos

Signal selection efficiency times acceptance for charged Higgs boson with masses between $60\,$GeV to $168\,$GeV. The efficiency times acceptance drops at high masses rapidly due to the low momentum of the $b$-quark produced together with the charged Higgs boson. For the $168\,$GeV mass point the efficiency times acceptance is larger than for the $160\,$GeV mass point due to having a higher probability that the top quark, which decays into the charged Higgs boson and a $b$-quark, is off-shell.

Best fit values of $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{HF}}$ parameters at charged Higgs masses between $60\,$GeV and $168\,$GeV.

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 0-10% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 10-20% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 20-30% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 30-40% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 40-50% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 50-60% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The $H$ parameter that characterize the magnitude of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The $\sigma$ parameter that characterize the width of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $A$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $B$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $\widehat{A}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $\widehat{B}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The centrality dependence of $\alpha_0$, the $m_T$-averaged value of $\alpha$ as a function of $N_{part}$.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.326$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.438$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.553$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.670$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.787$ GeV.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

The best values of $B^{-1}_{\eta\prime}$ spectrum of the $\eta\prime$ condensate in the six centrality classes.

The centrality dependence of the best values of the in-medium mass of the $m^{*}_{\eta\prime}$.

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 0-10% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 10-20% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 20-30% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 30-40% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 40-50% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 50-60% (see Fig. 11).

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ / $N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 3 panel b, $[p_{T}]$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

The pNN input variable visible transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{vis}}(\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mu,E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable MMC mass $m^{\mathrm{MMC}}(bb\tau\tau)$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $\mu\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $e\mu$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$, $1b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$,$1B$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when combining all categories. The inner green and outer yellow shaded bands show the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ uncertainties of the expected limits.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when considering different categories based on the heavy-flavor objects separately. When the category is not used for a mass hypothesis, the limit is listed as zero.