Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.

This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.

Transverse momentum spectra for the jet region, obtained as toward-transverse. Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The spectrum is shown in Figure 1 (right panel).

Coalescence parameter B2 as a function of the transverse momentum per nucleon pT/A, in the underlying event (transverse region). Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The B2 is shown in Figure 2 (both panels).

Coalescence parameter B2 as a function of the transverse momentum per nucleon pT/A, in the jet (transverse-toward region). Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The B2 is shown in Figure 2 (both panels).

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

CF vs qinv

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

Rinv vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

lambda vs mT

$R_\mathrm{T}$ distribution using events with trigger particles $5<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<40~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region for different $R_\mathrm{T}$ intervals using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Average $p_\mathrm{T}$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the transverse region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the toward region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

$p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated yield normalised to $<N_\mathrm{ch}^\mathrm{T}>$ as a function of $R_\mathrm{T}$ in the away region using events with trigger particles $8<p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}<15~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in the pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.8$ and with $p_\mathrm{T}>0.5~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].

The reconstruction efficiency for caloDPJs produced by the decay of &gamma;_d into e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as a function of their transverse momentum in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the c+&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2c search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Branching ratio of $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}\rightarrow\phi\pi^+\rightarrow\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^-\pi^+$: $(2.22 \pm 0.06)\%$. Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.7\%$ Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $1.9\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{*+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $0.7\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.8\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.2\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/(\mathrm{D}^{0}+\mathrm{D}^{+})$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.3\%$

$\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Charm $f_\mathrm{s}/(f_\mathrm{u}+f_\mathrm{d})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{c\bar{c}})$ at $|y|<0.5$ in pp collisions vs.$\sqrt{s}$