Expected CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

Observed CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

Expected CLs values in the Low mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

Observed CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

CLs+b values in the Low mA SR, mA vs tanB signal grid.

CLs+b values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

CLs+b values in the Low mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.

Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, gluon–gluon fusion production, Low mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.

Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, gluon–gluon fusion production, High mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.

Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, bb annihilation production, Low mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.

Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, bb annihilation production, High mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.

A comparison of the observed and expected yields in the four bins of the Low mA SR.

A comparison of the observed and expected yields in the two bins of the High mA SR.

Expected exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Observed exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Expected +- 1sigma exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Expected exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Observed exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Expected +- 1sigma exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod

Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod

Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

The Fourier coefficient V_n,n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| for individual n values.

The Fourier coefficient V_n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| from the 2PC anaysis for individual n values from 2 to n.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 0 TO 5%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 5 TO 10%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 10 TO 20%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 20 TO 30%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 30 TO 40%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 40 TO 50%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 50 TO 60%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 60 TO 70%.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 1 TO 2 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 2 TO 3 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 3 TO 4 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 4 TO 8 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 8 TO 12 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 12 TO 20 GeV.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1} vs pT for different centrality selections, Figure 21.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

dDeltaPhi distribution in 7 TeV P-P collisions.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2016 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 2.3%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2017 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 3.7%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2018 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 1.8%.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_150. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_300. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass channel for the exclusion and discovery signal regions as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. This treats the lack of availability of $b$-jet triggers as an inefficiency.

The particle-level acceptance for the low-mass exclusion and discovery signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass channel discovery regions as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the efficiency is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. The efficiency calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The particle-level acceptance for the high-mass signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the acceptance is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 130 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 150 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Fitted event-level b-tagging selection efficiency as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The uncertainties are evaluated by propagating the uncertainties on the fit parameters to the fitted efficiency.