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

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

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

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

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

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Acceptance across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Acceptance across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Efficiency across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Efficiency across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Distribution of the NN output in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Distribution of the NN output in the $t\bar{t}\gamma\,$CR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Total event yield in the $W\gamma\,$CR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Distribution of the scalar sum of the jet transverse momenta in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $\eta$ of the $b$-tagged jet in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the top-quark+photon system in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $\eta$ in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the scalar sum of the jet transverse momenta in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the $b$-tagged jet and the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the difference in $\eta$ between the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet and the photon in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the energy of the system formed by the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet and the photon in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $\eta$ of the $b$-tagged jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the top-quark and photon system in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $\eta$ in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Fraction of events where both bosons are longitudinally polarized in the region with $p_T^Z>200$ GeV using two unconstrained parameters.

Numbers of observed and expected events in the 00-enhanced signal regions, before the fit. The total uncertainties are quoted.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured longitudinal-longitudinal fractions $f_{00}$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Numbers of observed and expected events in the 00-enhanced signal regions, after the fit. The total uncertainties are quoted.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

$|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV of the TT state.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

$|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ Migration matrix RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV of of the sum of all polarization.

The $\mathcal{D}$ value for the unfolded $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ distributions of the TT polarization state as a function of the $p_T^{WZ}$ cut value.

The $\mathcal{D}$ value for the unfolded $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ distributions of the TT polarization state as a function of the $p_T^{WZ}$ cut value.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 20$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 40$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Measured normalized differential $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$ cross-section of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}< 70$ GeV. The total uncertainties are quoted. The last bin covers all events above the lower end of the bin.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<20$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<40$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<70$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<20$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<40$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the TT state in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<70$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<20$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<40$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<70$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(l_{W}Z)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<20$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<40$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured depth of the sum of polarization states in the RAZ Region $p_{T}^{WZ}<70$ GeV using $|\Delta Y(WZ)|$. The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

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.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{21}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet ECF2 at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet ECF2 at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $C_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $C_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $p_\mathrm{T}^{d,*}$ (jet $p_T$ dispersion) at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $p_\mathrm{T}^{d,*}$ (jet $p_T$ dispersion) at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet LHA at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet LHA at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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