$\xi$ distributions for different jet $p_T$ bins.

$\xi$ distributions for different jet $p_T$ bins.

The $j_T/p_{T}^{\rm jet}$ distributions for different jet $p_T$ bins.

The $j_T/p_{T}^{\rm jet}$ distributions for different jet $p_T$ bins.

$r$ distributions for different jet $p_T$ bins.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the scalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the pseudoscalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the QCD control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(1l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the Z(2l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(2l) control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $(N_{\text{jet}},N_{\text{bjet}})$ distribution of the ttZ control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN distribution of the Drell-Yan control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (flip odd/even events to choose muon charge), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (charge difference), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the Z boson mass fit (using dimuon mass), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the W boson mass fit (helicity cross section fit), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty. The last column reports the result of a simultaneous fit to the single muon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μ}, \mathit{\eta}^{μ}, \mathit{q}^{μ})$ distribution in $W$ boson decays and the dimuon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution in $Z$ boson events. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{p}_{T}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Generator-level $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling), with the alternative measurements using different approaches to the $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling and its uncertainty. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty before the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty after the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The scale factors for the PDF uncertainties from each set are reported in Table A.3 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Distributions of p_T(Z) × ∆m in the SR after the fit to data with a (mA , mH) signal hypothesis of (1000, 850) GeV. The pre-fit signal is arbitrarily scaled and therefore omitted.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Observed local significance of the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratio of the $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio to the $m_{\rm T}$-scaling prediction as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\pi^{0}$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 0.9 TeV, with $n = 5.01$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\pi^{0}$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV, with $n = 5.01$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\pi^{0}$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, with $n = 5.01$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\pi^{0}$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV, with $n = 5.01$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\pi^{0}$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, with $n = 5.01$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\eta$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV, with $n = 4.91$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\eta$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, with $n = 4.91$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\eta$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV, with $n = 4.91$.

$x_{\rm T}$ scaled $\eta$ spectrum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, with $n = 4.91$.

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-100%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\pi^{0}$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-100%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Invariant differential yields of the $\eta$ meson versus transverse momentum for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the INEL>0 event class in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01%. (Scaled for visibility in the figure)

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\pi^{0}$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class (data points not shown in figure 11).

Ratios of the invariant differential yields of $\eta$ meson in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01% to the inclusive spectrum in the INEL>0 event class.

Slope parameter (n) of a power-law fit ($f(p_{\rm T}) = \alpha p_{\rm T}^{-n}$) for $5 < p_{\rm T} < 15$ GeV/$c$ as a function the charged-particle multiplicity density in units of the average normalized multiplicity density for the INEL>0 event class for the neutral pion.

Slope parameter (k) of an exponential fit ($f(p_{\rm T}) = \alpha e^{-p_{\rm T}/k}$) for $0.4 < p_{\rm T} < 2$ GeV/$c$ as a function the charged-particle multiplicity density in units of the average normalized multiplicity density for the INEL>0 event class for the neutral pion.

Slope parameter (n) of a power-law fit ($f(p_{\rm T}) = \alpha p_{\rm T}^{-n}$) for $5 < p_{\rm T} < 15$ GeV/$c$ as a function the charged-particle multiplicity density in units of the average normalized multiplicity density for the INEL>0 event class for the eta meson.

Slope parameter (k) of an exponential fit ($f(p_{\rm T}) = \alpha e^{-p_{\rm T}/k}$) for $1.5 < p_{\rm T} < 4$ GeV/$c$ as a function the charged-particle multiplicity density in units of the average normalized multiplicity density for the INEL>0 event class for the eta meson.

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-100%.

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70%.

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1%.

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05% (data points not shown in figure 13).

$\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01% (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 70-100% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 50-70% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 30-50% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 20-30% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 10-20% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 5-10% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 1-5% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-1% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0.05-0.1% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.1% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0.01-0.05% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Ratio of $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in INEL>0 collisions in the V0M multiplicity class 0-0.01% to the inclusive $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (data points not shown in figure 13).

Mean values of the ratio of the $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in a certain multiplicity interval to the $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in the INEL>0 event class for $1 < p_{\rm{ T}} < 4 \rm{~GeV}/c$ as a function of the normalized mean charged-particle multiplicity.

Mean values of the ratio of the $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in a certain multiplicity interval to the $\eta/\pi^{0}$ ratio in the INEL>0 event class for $5 < p_{\rm{ T}} < 15 \rm{~GeV}/c$ as a function of the normalized mean charged-particle multiplicity.