Normalized differential distributions of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Normalized differential distributions of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Normalized differential distributions of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the ratio between the cross sections of $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ and $\mathrm{tt}$, as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the ratio between the cross sections of $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ and $\mathrm{tt}$, as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading top $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading top $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm N}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm N}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm N}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm d}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm d}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm d}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 0 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 1 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 2 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 3 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 4 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 5 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs. '<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 6 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm p}$ vs.'<dN_{ch}/d \eta>^{1/3}' for mT bin 7 for Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV.

proton-deuteron (same charge) correlation function for centrality 0-10% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

proton-deuteron (same charge) correlation function for centrality 10-30% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

proton-deuteron (same charge) correlation function for centrality 30-50% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

pion-deuteron (opposite charge) correlation function for centrality 0-10% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

pion-deuteron (opposite charge) correlation function for centrality 10-30% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

pion-deuteron (opposite charge) correlation function for centrality 30-50% from Pb-Pb collisions at 5020 GeV

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for ${\rm \overline{p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for ${\rm \overline{p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for ${\rm \overline{p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for ${\rm {p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for ${\rm {p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for ${\rm {p}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{ 0}_S}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{ 0}_S}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{ 0}_S}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{\pm}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{\pm}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for ${\rm K^{\pm}}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for $\pi^{\pm}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for $\pi^{\pm}$, rescaled value from 2760GeV to 5020GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for $\pi^{\pm}$, rescaled value from 2760 GeV to 5020 GeV.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $0-10\%$ centrality for ${\rm {d}(\rm {\overline{d}})}$.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $10-30\%$ centrality for ${\rm {d}(\rm {\overline{d}})}$.

$R_{\rm inv}$ vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for $30-50\%$ centrality for ${\rm {d}(\rm {\overline{d}})}$.

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $, as a function of the average number of participant nucleons, $\langle{ N_{\rm part}}\rangle$, in Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $, as a function of the average number of participant nucleons, $\langle{ N_{\rm part}}\rangle$, in Xe--Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $, as a function of the average number of participant nucleons, $\langle{ N_{\rm part}}\rangle$, in Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for spherocity-integrated events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for jetty events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for isotropic events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for spherocity-integrated events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for jetty events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV

Normalized transverse momentum correlator, $\sqrt{ \langle\langle \Delta p_{{\rm T}1}\Delta p_{{\rm T}2} \rangle\rangle }/\langle\langle p_{\rm T} \rangle\rangle $ as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density for isotropic events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV

Distributions for data and expected signal and background contributions of the MVA score for the µ + jets channel in the 3j1b category, before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty in the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-prediction ratio. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Observed and predicted number of events in each of the eight categories of the signal region, before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty in the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-prediction ratio.

Distributions for the e + jets final state before the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization before the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the e + jets final state after the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization after the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the µ + jets final state before the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization before the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the µ + jets final state after the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization after the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Covariance matrix for the lepton+jets ML fit.

Covariance matrix for the combination ML fit.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $v_2\{4\}$ as a function of centrality.

Charged particle $\langle v_2 \rangle$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Charged particle $\sigma_{v_2}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $\langle v_2 \rangle$ as a function of centrality.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $\sigma_{v_2}$ as a function of centrality.

Charged particle $v_3\{2, \left | \Delta\eta \right | > 0.8\}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Charged particle $v_4\{2, \left | \Delta\eta \right | > 0.8\}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $v_3\{2, \left | \Delta\eta \right | > 0.8\}$ as a function of centrality.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $v_4\{2, \left | \Delta\eta \right | > 0.8\}$ as a function of centrality.

Charged particle $v_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Charged particle $\rho_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $v_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $\rho_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality.

Charged particle $v_4^{\rm L}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Charged particle $\chi_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $v_4^{\rm L}$ as a function of centrality.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle $\chi_{4,22}$ as a function of centrality.

Charged particle NSC$(3,2)$ as a function of centrality in Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, respectively.

Ratio between Xe$-$Xe and Pb$-$Pb charged particle NSC$(3,2)$ as a function of centrality.

Correlations of the ttH signal-strength modifiers in the different Higgs pT bins of the STXS measurement.

Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the tH signal strength modifier $\mu_{tH}$ with $\mu_{ttH}=1$ for different channels and years, where the uncertainties are uncorrelated between the channels and years, and in their combination. The one and two standard deviation confidence intervals on the expected limit are also listed (sigma).

Likelihood-ratio test statistic as a function of the ttH and tH signal strength modifiers $\mu_{ttH}$ and $\mu_{tH}$. The observed best fit point is $(\mu_{tH}, \mu_{ttH}) = (-3.83, +0.35)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\kappa_{V}$. The observed best fit point is $(\kappa_{t}, \kappa_{V}) = (+0.59, +1.40)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ for $\kappa_{V}=1$. The observed best fit point is $\kappa_{t} = +0.54$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{t}$ with $\kappa_{V}=1$. The observed best fit point is $(\kappa_{t}, \tilde{\kappa}_{t}) = (+0.53, 0.00)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $f_{CP}$. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1. The observed best fit point is $f_{CP} = 0.00$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\cos(\alpha)$. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1. The observed best fit point is $\cos(\alpha) = +1.00$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{t}$ with $\kappa_{V}=1$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channels and in their combination.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $f_{CP}$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channel and in their combination. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\cos(\alpha)$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channels and in their combination. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1.

non prompt $\psi(2S)$ $\lambda_\theta$