$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 30-40% centrality

1D $\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 70-80% centrality

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ PbPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in PbPb for relative $<|\Delta\phi|>/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb for relative $|\Delta\phi|/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 0-40 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 120-150 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 270-300 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $p_{T}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of $\phi$ meson w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0.5-0.8 GeV/$c$ measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson w.r.t. Random Plane in transverse momentum range 0.8-1.2 GeV/$c$ measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of $\phi$ meson w.r.t. Random Plane in transverse momentum range 0.5-0.7 GeV/$c$ measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of K$^{0}_{S}$ meson w.r.t. Event Plane in transverse momentum range 0.6-0.8 GeV/$c$ measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of K$^{0}_{S}$ meson w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0.6-0.8 GeV/$c$ measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0-0.6 GeV/$c$ measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$cos\theta^{*}$ distribution of $\phi$ meson w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0.5-0.8 GeV/$c$ measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Event Plane for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Event Plane for $\rm{K}^{0}_{S}$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Event Plane for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Production Plane for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Production Plane for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Production Plane for $\rm{K}^{0}_{S}$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Production Plane for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Production Plane for $\phi$ meson measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Random Plane for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ w.r.t. Random Plane for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0.4-1.2 GeV/$c$ for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 3.0-5.0 GeV/$c$ for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 0.5-0.8 GeV/$c$ for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Production Plane in transverse momentum range 3.0-5.0 GeV/$c$ for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Event Plane in transverse momentum range 0.8-1.2 GeV/$c$ for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Event Plane in transverse momentum range 3.0-5.0 GeV/$c$ for $\rm{K}^{*0}$ (average of particle and anti-particle) meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Event Plane in transverse momentum range 0.5-0.7 GeV/$c$ for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\rm{part}} \rangle$ w.r.t. Event Plane in transverse momentum range 3.0-5.0 GeV/$c$ for $\phi$ meson measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ that decays to $W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction to $q_i\bar{q}_j W\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to bottom quarks ($\tilde{g}\to b\bar{b}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$). Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to top quarks ($\tilde{g}\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$). Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for light-flavor squark pair production, where the squarks decay to $q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay and 1-fold degeneracy in the light-flavor squarks (corresponding to the inner set of curves in the limit plot). To get the theory cross section for other N-fold degeneracy assumptions (e.g. 8-fold for the outer curves in the limit plot), just multiply by N.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for bottom squark pair production, where the squarks decay to $b\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for top squark pair production, where the squarks decay to $t\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for top squark pair production, where the squarks decay to $b\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decay to $W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for top squark pair production, where the squarks decay either to $b\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to bW^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ or to $t\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for top squark pair production, where the squarks decay to $c\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for the mono-$\phi$ model, in which a resonantly-produced colored scalar decays to a massive Dirac fermion and a quark. Signal cross sections are calculated at leading order in $\alpha_S$, assuming unity branching fraction for the given decay.

Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{q}\nu$, where $q=u,\,d,\,s,\,\mathrm{or}\,c$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratio is assumed to be 100% to $\mathrm{q}\nu$.

Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{b}\nu$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratio is assumed to be 100% to $\mathrm{b}\nu$.

Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{t}\nu$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratios are assumed to be $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{t}\nu)=1-\beta$, and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{b}\tau)=\beta$.

Predictions and observations for monojet signal regions

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $250 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 450$ GeV

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $450 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 575$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}<7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $450 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 575$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}\geq7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $575 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1200$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{hi}<4$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $575 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1200$ GeV and $4\leq N_\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{hi}<7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $575 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1200$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}\geq7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $1200 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1500$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{hi}<4$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $1200 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1500$ GeV and $4\leq N_\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{hi}<7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $1200 \leq H_\mathrm{T} < 1500$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}\geq7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $H_\mathrm{T} \geq 1500$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}<7$

Predictions and observations for signal regions with $H_\mathrm{T} \geq 1500$ GeV and $N_\mathrm{j}\geq7$

Covariance matrix for the 282 signal regions of the inclusive $M_\mathrm{T2}$ search

Correlation matrix for the 282 signal regions of the inclusive $M_\mathrm{T2}$ search

Bin number definitions for the $M_\mathrm{T2}$ covariance and correlation matrices

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 10$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 50$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 200$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct light squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 10$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, for a single light squark.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct light squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 50$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, for a single light squark.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct light squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 200$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, for a single light squark.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct stop pair production, where the stops decay to either a top and the lightest neutralino, or a bottom and the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 10$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct stop pair production, where the stops decay to either a top and the lightest neutralino, or a bottom and the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 50$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct stop pair production, where the stops decay to either a top and the lightest neutralino, or a bottom and the lightest chargino, and the chargino is long-lived with $c\tau_0 = 200$ cm and mass O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

The maximum chargino mass excluded at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 1$ to 2000 cm while the gluino mass is fixed to 1900 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$. If all kinematically allowed chargino masses are excluded, the curves, including 68 and 95% expected, tend to overlap. At short decay lengths, horizontal exclusion lines are obtained from the inclusive analysis, as this is not affected by track reconstruction inefficiencies, which may arise when the chargino decays before the CMS tracker, and therefore shows better sensitivity to scenarios with very small lifetime compared to the disappearing track search, based on median expected limits.

The maximum chargino mass excluded at 95% CL for direct squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 1$ to 2000 cm while the squark mass is fixed to 900 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, for a single light squark. If all kinematically allowed chargino masses are excluded, the curves, including 68 and 95% expected, tend to overlap. At short decay lengths, horizontal exclusion lines are obtained from the inclusive analysis, as this is not affected by track reconstruction inefficiencies, which may arise when the chargino decays before the CMS tracker, and therefore shows better sensitivity to scenarios with very small lifetime compared to the disappearing track search, based on median expected limits.

The maximum chargino mass excluded at 95% CL for direct squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 1$ to 2000 cm while the squark mass is fixed to 1500 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, and the eight light squarks' masses are assumed to be degenerate. If all kinematically allowed chargino masses are excluded, the curves, including 68 and 95% expected, tend to overlap. At short decay lengths, horizontal exclusion lines are obtained from the inclusive analysis, as this is not affected by track reconstruction inefficiencies, which may arise when the chargino decays before the CMS tracker, and therefore shows better sensitivity to scenarios with very small lifetime compared to the disappearing track search, based on median expected limits.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct stop pair production, where the stops decay to either a top and the lightest neutralino, or a bottom and the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 1$ to 2000 cm while the stop mass is fixed to 1000 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$. If all kinematically allowed chargino masses are excluded, the curves, including 68 and 95% expected, tend to overlap. At short decay lengths, horizontal exclusion lines are obtained from the inclusive analysis, as this is not affected by track reconstruction inefficiencies, which may arise when the chargino decays before the CMS tracker, and therefore shows better sensitivity to scenarios with very small lifetime compared to the disappearing track search, based on median expected limits.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 5$ to 1000 cm while the gluino mass is fixed to 1600 GeV and the neutralino's mass is fixed to 1575 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct squark pair production, where the squarks decay to light-flavor quarks and either the lightest neutralino, or the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 5$ to 1000 cm while the squark mass is fixed to 2000 GeV and the neutralino's mass is fixed to 1000 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$, and the eight light squarks' masses are assumed to be degenerate.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct stop pair production, where the stops decay to either a top and the lightest neutralino, or a bottom and the lightest chargino, and the chargino mass is O(100) MeV greater than the neutralino's mass. The chargino's lifetime is varied from $c\tau_{0} = 5$ to 1000 cm while the stop mass is fixed to 1100 GeV and the neutralino's mass is fixed to 1000 GeV. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL order in $\alpha_S$.

Predictions and observations for 2016 disappearing track signal regions

Predictions and observations for 2017-2018 pixel track signal regions

Predictions and observations for 2017-2018 medium (M) and long (L) length track signal regions

Covariance matrix for the 68 signal regions of the disappearing tracks $M_\mathrm{T2}$ search

Correlation matrix for the 68 signal regions of the disappearing tracks $M_\mathrm{T2}$ search

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.2. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.3. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.3. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.4. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.4. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.5. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.5. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.6. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 1 Left, data for jet radius R=0.6. Unfolded pp full jet cross-section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV for R = 0.1 − 0.6. No leading track requirement is imposed.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.1. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.1. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.2. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.2. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.3. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.3. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.4. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.4. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.5. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.5. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.6. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 2, values for jet radius R=0.6. Non-perturbative correction factor applied to parton-level NLO+NLL predictions, obtained from PYTHIA 8 tune A14 as the ratio of the inclusive jet spectrum at hadron-level with MPI compared to parton-level without MPI.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.2. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.2. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.3. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.3. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.4. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.4. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.5. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.5. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.6. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Bottom, data for jet radius ratio R=0.1/R=0.6. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.1 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.3. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.3. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.4. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.4. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.5. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.5. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.6. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 3 Top, data for jet radius ratio R=0.2/R=0.6. Unfolded pp jet cross-section ratios for various R. With R = 0.2 in the numerator.

Fig. 4 Left, data for pp. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$, with 5 GeV leading track requirement. The pp data points correspond to $\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T,jet}} \mathrm{d}\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}}$.

Fig. 4 Left, data for pp. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$, with 5 GeV leading track requirement. The pp data points correspond to $\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T,jet}} \mathrm{d}\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}}$.

Fig. 4 Left, data for PbPb. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$, with 5 GeV leading track requirement. The pp data points correspond to $\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T,jet}} \mathrm{d}\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}}$.

Fig. 4 Left, data for PbPb. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$, with 5 GeV leading track requirement. The pp data points correspond to $\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T,jet}} \mathrm{d}\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}}$.

Fig. 4 Right, data for pp. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$, with 7 GeV leading track requirement.

Fig. 4 Right, data for pp. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$, with 7 GeV leading track requirement.

Fig. 4 Right, data for PbPb. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$, with 7 GeV leading track requirement.

Fig. 4 Right, data for PbPb. Unfolded pp and Pb-Pb full jet spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$, with 7 GeV leading track requirement.

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 5/0. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 5/0. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 7/0. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 7/0. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 7/5. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Left, data for pp jet cross section with leading track bias ratio 7/5. Ratio of the pp jet cross-section with various leading charged particle requirements

Fig. 5 Right. Ratio of the R = 0.2 Pb–Pb jet cross-section with a 7 GeV/c leading charged particle requirement compared to a 5 GeV/c leading charged particle requirement.

Fig. 5 Right. Ratio of the R = 0.2 Pb–Pb jet cross-section with a 7 GeV/c leading charged particle requirement compared to a 5 GeV/c leading charged particle requirement.

Fig. 6 Top Left. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$. Same leading track requirement of 5 GeV is imposed on the numerator as well as denominator.

Fig. 6 Top Left. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$. Same leading track requirement of 5 GeV is imposed on the numerator as well as denominator.

Fig. 6 Top Right. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$. Same leading track requirement of 7 GeV is imposed on the numerator as well as denominator.

Fig. 6 Top Right. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$. Same leading track requirement of 7 GeV is imposed on the numerator as well as denominator.

Fig. 6 Bottom Left. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$. PbPb with leading track requirement of 5 GeV. pp reference without a leading track requirement.

Fig. 6 Bottom Left. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.2$. PbPb with leading track requirement of 5 GeV. pp reference without a leading track requirement.

Fig. 6 Bottom Right. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$. PbPb with leading track requirement of 7 GeV. pp reference without a leading track requirement.

Fig. 6 Bottom Right. Jet $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV for $R=0.4$. PbPb with leading track requirement of 7 GeV. pp reference without a leading track requirement.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $0 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 150^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $150 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 170^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $170 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 180^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $0 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 150^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $150 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 170^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $170 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 180^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T1}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the subleading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T2}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the third leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T3}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the fourth leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T4}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity distribution in TUnfold binning ($N_{jets},\Delta\phi_{1,2},p_{T1}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource. The uncertainties follow the notation of Table 1.

Correlation matrix at particle level for the measured jet multiplicity in TUnfold binning ($N_{jets},\Delta\phi_{1,2},p_{T1}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource.

Jet $p_{T}$ distributions in TUnfold binning ($p_{T1},p_{T2},p_{T3},p_{T4}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource. The uncertainties follow the notation of Table 1.

Correlation matrix at particle level for the measured jet $p_{T}$ distributions in TUnfold binning ($p_{T1},p_{T2},p_{T3},p_{T4}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{t}\varphi}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}, \text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+p collisions at rapidity 1.2 < |y| < 2.2. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

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

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

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

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

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

Comparison of observed $95\%$ CL intervals for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$. Results are shown from a CMS ttZ measurement [JHEP 03 (2020) 056], from a CMS ttZ & tZq interpretation [arXiv:2107.13896], from a CMS ttG (lepton+jets) measurement [arXiv:2107.01508], from this measurement, and from a global fit by J. Ellis et al. [JHEP 04 (2021) 279].