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.

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.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL upper limits on the signal strength for the inclusive ggF HH production from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on &mu;_ggF^HH (&mu;_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL upper limits on the signal strength for the VBF HH production from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on &mu;_ggF^HH (&mu;_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95&percnt; CL on the inclusive ggF and VBF HH production cross-section from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. The Higgs boson mass is set to 125&nbsp;GeV when deriving the predicted SM cross-section (red band). The expected limits, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, are calculated under the assumption of no Higgs boson pair production and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95&percnt; CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of (a) the inclusive ggF and VBF processes as a function of &kappa;_&lambda;, for the bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; (purple), bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb&#772;bb&#772; (blue) and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no HH production. The red line shows the theory prediction for the ggF and VBF HH production cross-section as a function of &kappa;_&lambda;. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95&percnt; CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of the VBF process as a function of &kappa;_2V, for the bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; (purple), bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb&#772;bb&#772; (blue) and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no VBF HH production. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The red line shows the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of &kappa;_2V. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL combined upper limits on the cross-section for the SM and seven BSM HEFT benchmarks (arXiv:2304.01968 [hep-ph]) in the ggF process, describing representative signal kinematics and m_HH shape features obtained by varying multiple HEFT coefficients. The expected limits from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; and bb&#772;bb&#772; decay channels are presented as well. Theoretical predictions, estimated using specific sets of coefficient values defined in the benchmarks, are shown as red cross dots.

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.2 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, pT,jet

R32 for delta y

R32 for delta y max

R32 for $m_{jj}$

R32 for $m_{jj, max}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, pT,jet

R43 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R43 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R43 for $m_{jj}$

R43 for $m_{jj, max}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R54 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R54 for $m_{jj}$

R54 for $m_{jj, max}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R42, pT,jet

R42 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R42 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R42 for $m_{jj}$

R42 for $m_{jj}$

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

pTnincl

pTnincl

pTnincl

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 3

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 4

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.05 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.2 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading muon $p_\mathrm{T]$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading muon $\eta$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading muon $\eta$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading muon $\phi$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading muon $\phi$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet $p_\mathrm{T]$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet $p_\mathrm{T]$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet rapidity. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet rapidity. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet azimuth. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet azimuth. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet mass. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet mass. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet constituent multiplicity. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet constituent multiplicity. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet $\tau_1$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet $\tau_1$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet $\tau_2$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet $\tau_2$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet $\tau_3$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of subleading charged particle jet $\tau_3$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of leading charged particle jet $\tau_{21}$. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Differential cross-section in bins of $\Delta R$ between the leading charged particle jet and the dilepton system. The actual measurement is unbinned and available with examples at <a href="https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024">gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-physics/public/sm-z-jets-omnifold-2024</a>

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$) parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$) parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Summary of the expected (blue) and observed (orange) one-dimensional constraints at 68% (solid error bars) and 95% (dashed error bars) CL on the coefficients of selected HEFT (top) and SMEFT (bottom) operators describing Higgs boson interactions affecting $HH$ production through gluon-gluon fusion. The results are obtained from one dimensional scans of the profile log-likelihood assuming that all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The contribution from VBF $HH$ production is neglected.

Figure 8(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 8(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 9 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta \phi$ between the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the invariant mass of the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell ight) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 12 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 18 & 24) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 4.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 19 & 25) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 9.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 20 & 26) for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 5.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 21 & 27) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 10.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 22 & 28) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 11.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 23 & 29) for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 6.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 12.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 13.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 14.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 15.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 16.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 17.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 12.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 13.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 14.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 15.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 16.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 17.

Dijet invariant mass distributions data compared to the fitted background estimates for the $j b b$ channel. The distributions are shown here with the $m_{jj}$ resolution binning.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $\gamma j j$ channel with the background and signal contributions modeled by a 5-parameter fit function and templates from the signal samples, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $\gamma b b$ channel with the background and signal contributions modeled by a 5-parameter fit function and templates from the signal samples, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $j j j$ channel with the background and signal contributions modeled by a 5-parameter fit function and templates from the signal samples, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma\times BR\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $j b b$ channel with the background and signal contributions modeled by a 5-parameter fit function and templates from the signal samples, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $\gamma j j$ channel with the background and Gaussian distributed signal templates with a mass $m_{G}$ and width $\sigma_{G}$, respectively. Observed and expected limits corresponding to different choices of template widths (5, 7, 10, 12 and 15) are reported.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $\gamma b b$ channel with the background and Gaussian distributed signal templates with a mass $m_{G}$ and width $\sigma_{G}$, respectively. Observed and expected limits corresponding to different choices of template widths (5, 7, 10, 12 and 15) are reported.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $j j j$ channel with the background and Gaussian distributed signal templates with a mass $m_{G}$ and width $\sigma_{G}$, respectively. Observed and expected limits corresponding to different choices of template widths (5, 7, 10, 12 and 15) are reported.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross-section, acceptance and branching ratio ($\sigma\times BR\times A$) as a function of the $Z^{`}$ mass for the $j b b$ channel with the background and Gaussian distributed signal templates with a mass $m_{G}$ and width $\sigma_{G}$, respectively. Observed and expected limits corresponding to different choices of template widths (5, 7, 10, 12 and 15) are reported.