Observed best fit differential cross section for the $|y_{H}|$ observable

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $m_{jj}$ (GeV) observable

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ observable.

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $\tau_{C}^{j}$ (GeV) observable

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $p_{T}^{H}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $N_{jets}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $p_{T}^{j0}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $|y_{H}|$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $m_{jj}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $\tau_{C}^{j}$ spectrum

Rotation matrix for the PCA of the SMEFT Wilson coefficients

Correlation matrix of the linear combinations of Wilson coefficients obtained from the PCA, obtained by fitting the observed data to the $p_{T}^{H}$ spectra of all decay channels.

Summary of observed and expected confidence intervals for the first eigenvectors obtained from the PCA of the SMEFT Wilson coefficients.

The geometric acceptance multiplied by the efficiency of the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV selection as a function of the proper decay length c$\tau$ for a scalar particle S with a mass of 40 GeV. The acceptance region for DT is defined by requiring the LLP to decay in the region with |z| < 661 cm and 380 cm < r < 736 cm. The acceptance region for CSC is defined by requiring the LLP decay in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 695.5 cm, and 661 cm < |z| < 1100 cm or in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 270 cm, and 500 cm < |z| < 661 cm. Single CSC cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in CSC; Single DT cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in DT; Double cluster requires both LLP to decay in CSC or DT. The denominator in this plot includes all generated events. The nominator includes events that pass the acceptance requirements above and $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV.

Distributions of the cluster time for signal, where S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ for a proper decay length c$\tau$ of 1 m and mass of 40 GeV, and for a background-enriched sample in data selected by inverting the $N_\text{hits}$ requirement.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m).

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for compared to the OOT background ($t_\text{clusters} < 12.5$ ns). The OOT background is representative of the overall background shape, because the background passing all the selections described above is dominated by pileup and underlying events.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for CSC-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-DT category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 3 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{0}K^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \e^{+} \e^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the visible $\tau\nu$ production cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma(pp \to \tau\nu +X) \cdot \mathcal{A} \cdot \varepsilon$, for $m_{\rm T}$ thresholds ranging from 200 to 2950 GeV. See HepData abstract for details on how to use this data for reinterpretation.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the W′ mass in several NUGIM models defined by the value of the parameter cot$\theta$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the W′ mass in several NUGIM models defined by the value of the parameter cot$\theta$.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 25 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 30 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 25 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\kappa_{g,\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ as a function of $\kappa_{g,\mathrm{off-shell}}$ while profiling $\kappa_{V,\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\kappa_{V,\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ as a function of $\kappa_{V,\mathrm{off-shell}}$ while profiling $\kappa_{g,\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\kappa_{H}}$ as a function of $\kappa_{H}=\Gamma_H/\Gamma_H^{\mathrm{SM}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{R_{gg}}$ as a function of $R_{gg}=\kappa_{g,\mathrm{on-shell}}^2/\kappa_{g,\mathrm{off-shell}}^2$ while profiling $R_{VV}=\kappa_{V,\mathrm{on-shell}}^2/\kappa_{V,\mathrm{off-shell}}^2$ and fixing $\kappa_H=1$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{R_{VV}}$ as a function of $R_{VV}=\kappa_{V,\mathrm{on-shell}}^2/\kappa_{V,\mathrm{off-shell}}^2$ while profiling $R_{gg}=\kappa_{g,\mathrm{on-shell}}^2/\kappa_{g,\mathrm{off-shell}}^2$ and fixing $\kappa_H=1$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ assuming a single parameter of interest $\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data when combining the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ and $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 2\ell 2\nu$ decay channels. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\kappa_{H}}$ as a function of $\kappa_{H}=\Gamma_H/\Gamma_H^{\mathrm{SM}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data in the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{\kappa_{H}}$ as a function of $\kappa_{H}=\Gamma_H/\Gamma_H^{\mathrm{SM}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data when combining the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ and $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 2\ell 2\nu$ decay channels. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{R_{gg}}$ as a function of $R_{gg}$ while profiling $R_{VV}$ and fixing $\kappa_H=1$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Values of the test statistic $t_{R_{VV}}$ as a function of $R_{VV}$ while profiling $R_{gg}$ and fixing $\kappa_H=1$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.

Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Cutflow for the SRL selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 250 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRM selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1050 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRH selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1950 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 0-5% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 20-30% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 40-50% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ with $0.2 < p_{\rm T}^{\rm t} < 0.6$ GeV/$c$ in different centrality intervals

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 0-5% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 20-30% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 40-50% centrality

The flow angle fluctuation $A_{\rm 2}^{\rm f}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

The flow magnitude fluctuation $M_{\rm 2}^{\rm f}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

Lower limit of flow angle fluctuations as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

Upper limit of flow magnitude fluctuations as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

The unfolded dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The unfolded dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of unfolded dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

Mean xj ratio, $\langle x_{j} \rangle$, in the range $10-60$ as unfolded for different multiplicities, for different leading and subleading jet combinations for the midrapidity, forward, and backward regions

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution, $(1/N_{dijet})(dN_{dijet}/dx_{j})$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $10-60$, $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ multiplicity ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with both jets at the midrapidity regions.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and forward regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at midrapidity and backward regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at forward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

The ratio of reconstructed (raw) dijet balance distribution to the lower multiplicity range, $10-60$, as function of $x_{j}$ for the $60-120$, $120-185$, $185-250$ and $250-400$ ranges with leading and subleading jets at backward and midrapidity regions, respectively.

Mean xj ratio, $\langle x_{j} \rangle$, in the range $10-60$ as reconstructed (raw) for different multiplicities, for different leading and subleading jet combinations for the midrapidity, forward, and backward regions