Non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^0$ and $\mathrm{D}^+$ average $p_\mathrm{{T}}$-differential $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Non-prompt $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ $p_\mathrm{{T}}$-differential $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^0$ $p_\mathrm{{T}}$-integrated $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^+$ $p_\mathrm{{T}}$-integrated $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^+$ / non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^0$ yield ratio in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Non-prompt $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ / non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^0$ yield ratio in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

Ratio of the $p_\mathrm{{T}}$-integrated ($2 < p_\mathrm{{T}} < 24$ $\mathrm{{GeV}}/c$) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ of non-prompt $\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ and non-prompt $\mathrm{D}^0$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{{TeV}}$ in the rapidity interval $-0.96 < y_{\mathrm{cms}} < 0.04$.

The observed profile likelihood ratio, $-2ln \Lambda$, as a function of $\Gamma_H$. Compared with the version in the paper, the effective couplings in the ggF, $H\to\gamma\gamma$, and $H\to Z\gamma$ processes are in terms of SM coupling strengths, resulting in an improved upper limit under stronger model assumptions.

The observed profile likelihood ratio, $-2ln \Lambda$, as a function of $\Gamma_H/\Gamma_H^{SM}$. Compared with the version in the paper, the effective couplings in the ggF, $H\to\gamma\gamma$, and $H\to Z\gamma$ processes are in terms of SM coupling strengths, resulting in an improved upper limit under stronger model assumptions.

The observed profile likelihood ratio, $-2ln \Lambda$, as a function of $\Gamma_H/\Gamma_H^{SM}$ and $\kappa_t$. Compared with the version in the paper, the effective couplings in the ggF, $H\to\gamma\gamma$, and $H\to Z\gamma$ processes are in terms of SM coupling strengths, resulting in an improved upper limit under stronger model assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-fit $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution in the signal region for the SM background-only hypothesis. Data are shown as black markers with vertical error bars representing the statistical uncertainty. Filled histograms show contributions of various SM processes, with the hatched band representing the total uncertainty. The line shows the prediction of the GM model for $\sin \theta_{\mathrm{H}} = 0.17$ and $m_{\mathrm{H_5}} = 375$ GeV, where the $\sin \theta_{\mathrm{H}}$ value corresponds to the expected $95\%$ CL limit for that $H_5$ mass.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H_{5}^{\pm}) \times \mathcal{B}(H_{5}^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}Z)$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H_{5}^{\pm}) \times \mathcal{B}(H_{5}^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}Z)$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm}) \times \mathcal{B}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm}) \times \mathcal{B}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin \theta_{{\mathrm{H}}}$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit. The exclusion limits are shown up to $m_{\mathrm{H_5}} = 1500$ GeV. The limits obtained separately in the $H_{5}^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}Z$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ channels are also shown for comparison. The hatched region covers the parameter space where the intrinsic widths of the $H_{5}^{\pm}$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm}$ bosons would be larger than $10\%$ of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$ and is disfavoured in the GM model.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin \theta_{{\mathrm{H}}}$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit. The exclusion limits are shown up to $m_{\mathrm{H_5}} = 1500$ GeV. The limits obtained separately in the $H_{5}^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}Z$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ channels are also shown for comparison. The hatched region covers the parameter space where the intrinsic widths of the $H_{5}^{\pm}$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm}$ bosons would be larger than $10\%$ of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$ and is disfavoured in the GM model.

Transverse momentum spectra of antideuterons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (right panel). Rapidity interval 0.3 to 0.4.

Transverse momentum spectra of antideuterons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (right panel). Rapidity interval 0.4 to 0.5.

Transverse momentum spectra of antideuterons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (right panel). Rapidity interval 0.5 to 0.6.

Transverse momentum spectra of antideuterons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (right panel). Rapidity interval 0.6 to 0.7.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0 to 0.1.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.1 to 0.2.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.2 to 0.3.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.3 to 0.4.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.4 to 0.5.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.5 to 0.6.

Transverse momentum spectra of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1 (left panel). Rapidity interval 0.6 to 0.7.

Integrated yields of antideuterons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of absolute value of rapidity. The figure is shown in Fig. 2 (right panel).

Integrated yields of antiprotons measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of absolute value of rapidity. The figure is shown in Fig. 2 (left panel).

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.0 to 0.1, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.1 to 0.2, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.2 to 0.3, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.3 to 0.4, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.4 to 0.5, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.5 to 0.6, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of transverse momentum per nucleon. The figure is shown in Fig. 3, rapidity interval 0.6 to 0.7, in absolute value.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of rapidity, for fixed intervals of transverse momentum per nucleon. The data is shown in Fig. 4, in the PT per nucleon interval from 0.9 to 1.0.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of rapidity, for fixed intervals of transverse momentum per nucleon. The data is shown in Fig. 4, in the PT per nucleon interval from 1.0 to 1.1.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of rapidity, for fixed intervals of transverse momentum per nucleon. The data is shown in Fig. 4, in the PT per nucleon interval from 1.1 to 1.3.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of rapidity, for fixed intervals of transverse momentum per nucleon. The data is shown in Fig. 4, in the PT per nucleon interval from 1.3 to 1.5.

coalescence parameter B2 measured in pp collisions at centre-of-mass per nucleon-nucleon energy of 13 TeV, as a function of rapidity, for fixed intervals of transverse momentum per nucleon. The data is shown in Fig. 4, in the PT per nucleon interval from 1.5 to 1.7.

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

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

Mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ for $\Lambda$ and $K^{0}_{S}$ at mid-rapidity as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ at 3 GeV.

Hadron 4$\pi$ yields per mean number of participants yield as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$.

Mid-rapidity yield ratios of $\Lambda/p$, $\Xi/\Lambda$, and $K^0_{S}/\Lambda$ at 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

Hadron mass dependence of mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the HAHM model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the FRVZ model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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