The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+b-jet invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The 2b-jet invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+e invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+e invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The j+$\mu$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+$\mu$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

Values of $\Delta Z$ for the discovery sensitivity, as defined in the text, as a function of the invariant mass $\textit{m}$. The b-jet+$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution is calculated in the 10 pb AR. Positive percentages indicate improvements in sensitivity. Horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 100% and 200% to guide the eye. The five benchmark BSM models are (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$; (2) a Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ and $\ell$, with $E \rightarrow Z\ell$; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow W Z' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$. The multiple markers shown for the composite-lepton model at the same invariant mass values correspond to different composite lepton ($E$) masses between 0.25 and 3.5 TeV. The center positions of the markers are set to the masses of the corresponding heavy particles.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times acceptance ($A$), efficiency ($\epsilon$), and branching ratio ($B$) for Gaussian-shaped signals with different signal widths. The limits are calculated for events with at least one lepton with pT > 60 GeV in the 10 pb AR. Two width hypotheses are shown; $\sigma X / mX = 0$ and $\sigma X / mX = 0.15$. In both cases, the detector resolution for jets is included in the simulation of signal samples. The $\pm1 \sigma$ and $\pm2 \sigma$ bands around the expected limit are shown for $\sigma X / mX = 0$ signals. Mass points are spaced 5% apart, relative to the preceding point, starting at 0.3 TeV.

Distributions of the anomaly score from the AE for data and five benchmark BSM models. Their legends, from top to bottom, are; (1) charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark, $tbH^{+}$ with $H^{+} \rightarrow t\bar{b}$, with the $H^{+}$ mass of 2 TeV; (2) a 6 TeV Kaluza-Klein gauge boson, $W_{KK}$, with the SM $W$ boson and a radion $\phi$; (3) a 4 TeV $Z'$ boson decaying to a composite lepton $E$ with a mass of 0.5 TeV; (4) the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow WZ' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$, with the $W'$ mass of 6.2 TeV and the $Z'$ mass of 6 TeV; (5) a simplified dark-matter model with an axial-vector mediator $Z' \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, where one of the quarks radiates a $W$ boson decaying to $\ell\nu$ with a mass of 6 TeV. The distributions for the BSM models are smoothed to remove fluctuations due to low MC event counts. The vertical lines indicate the start of the three anomaly regions (ARs). The labels of the three ARs indicate the visible cross section for hypothetical processes yielding the same number of events as observed in the 140 $fb^{-1}$ dataset. The AE is applied to preselected events without any requirements on invariant mass distributions.

Invariant mass distributions of $j+Y$ for $M_{jY}$ > 0.3 TeV after preselection along with the fit from Eq.(1). The fit is represented by red lines, and the associated uncertainties are indicated by yellow bands. The lower panels show the bin-by-bin significances of deviations from the fit, calculated as $(d_{\textit{i}} - f_{\textit{i}}) / \delta_{\textit{i}}$, where $d_{\textit{i}}$ is the data yield, $f_{\textit{i}}$ is the fit value, and $\delta_{i}$ is the uncertainty of data in the $\textit{i}$-th bin

Distributions of the anomaly score for data and several anomaly scenarios. The example BSM model (shown with the dashed blue lines) is the sequential standard model $W' \rightarrow WZ' \rightarrow \ell\nu q\bar{q}$. The mass of $W'$ is set to 2.2 TeV and the mass of the $Z'$ is set to 2 TeV. This model leads to the final state of one lepton, two jets, and small missing transverse energy that is similar to the SM backgrounds. The other histograms represent events from the same model with artificial modifications to represent anomalous events; (1) "Anomaly 1" is the case where all jets beyond the second jet ($N_{j}$ > 2) are replaced with photons; (2) "Anomaly 2" is the case where all jets beyond the second jet are replaced with $b$-jets; (3) "Anomaly 3" is the case of low-multiplicity events where all jets beyond the second jet are removed. The histograms are normalized to unit. The left peak near log(Loss) = -9 visible in Anomaly 1 and 2 is from the events without a third jet.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 monopoles as a function of mass for magnetic charges $|g|=1g_D$ and $|g|=2g_D$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-0 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-0 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. [$\kappa$ = 0]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. [$\kappa$ = 1]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% upper limits on the visible cross-section, $\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$, obtained from model-independent search by a signal-plus-background fit in the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines).Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$\kappa$ = 0]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines).Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$\kappa$ = 1]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distribution of the missing transverse energy in CRTop. The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Distribution of the dijet invariant mass in the signal region, shown together with the parameterized background model (labelled "Bkg Model"). For reference, the MC prediction for the SM background is also shown (labelled "SM MC"). The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The signal region is defined to have dijet invariant mass > 20 GeV. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 65$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 95$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 110$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 20$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 30$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Unweighted and weighted number of events after each stage of selection for the NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}) = (45,10,80)$ GeV and the Z boson decaying to $e^{+}e^{-}, \;\mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The weighted number of events corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $139 \;\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. The "skimming selection" required either a single electron or muon with $p_{T} > 100\;$ GeV or a pair of electrons or muons each with $p_{T} > 20\;$ GeV. The preselection requirements include the trigger, absence of a bad jet or bad muon, and two leptons, where a lepton is either an electron or a muon.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.