Particle-level TEEC results for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results

Particle-level ATEEC results for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the tenth HT2 bin

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with MMHT 2014 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with NNPDF 3.0

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with CT14 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with MMHT 2014 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with NNPDF 3.0

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with CT14 PDF

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Event yields after a background-only fit and data in the three signal regions. All the backgrounds except the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ are estimated using the real $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ contributions from MC. The fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ background contribution is data-driven. The top-quark, $V$+jets, and small backgrounds are included in "Others". The total uncertainties include both systematic and statistical. In the $WW1\ell2\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, the smaller uncertainty in the total background than the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ is due to the anticorrelations between the nuisance parameters of the fake $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ and diboson backgrounds obtained in the fit.

Uncertainties on $\sigma(pp\to X\to SH)$ obtained from the combined fit to the data for the least and most sensitive mass points. The uncertainties are symmetrised and grouped into the categories described in the systematic section.

Summary of observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the production cross-section of $\sigma(pp\to X\to SH)$ in fb in the combination of $WW$+$ZZ$, and in the $WW$ and $ZZ$ individual channels. The best expected limit is set to 85 fb for $m_{X}$ = 1250 GeV and $_{S}$ = 300 GeV. The combination limits gain about 26--53% over the best individual limit from the $WW1\ell2\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed limits of H(inv) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected limits of H(inv) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed limits of monoh(bb) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected limits of monoh(bb) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to \mu\mu\tau\tau$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to bbbb$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to bb\mu\mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $sin\theta$ for the low-mass hypothesis $m_{A}$ = 0.6 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 200 GeV.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $sin\theta$ for the high-mass hypothesis $m_{A}$ = 1 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 350 GeV.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\chi}$ following the parameter choices of $m_{A}$ = 1 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 400 GeV.

Cutflow for two representative signal samples used in this analysis. The excited tau mass $m_{\tau^\ast} = 2.75$ TeV and the contact interaction scale $\Lambda=10$ TeV. The LQ mass $m_\mathrm{LQ} = 1.3$ TeV. The event yields include all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Acceptance x efficiency of the $\tau^\ast$ signal SR selection

Acceptance x efficiency of the LQ signal SR selection

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{-})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{+}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*+})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*-})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{\pm})$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 3 and 4).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 5 and 6).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*\pm})$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 7 and 8).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 9 and 10).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{\pm})$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 3 and 4).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 5 and 6).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*\pm})$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 7 and 8).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 9 and 10).

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{+}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Descriptions of nuisance parameters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The limits are shown for all search channels combined, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for a &gamma;_d mass of 100&nbsp;MeV, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The solid black curve shows the observed exclusion limit from their statistical combination. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for a &gamma;_d mass of 10&nbsp;GeV, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The solid black curve shows the observed exclusion limit from their statistical combination. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

Acceptance times efficiency extrapolated as a function of c&tau;_&gamma;d for the &mu;DPJ channel (SR_&mu;), obtained for the different FRVZ MC signal mass points.

Acceptance times efficiency extrapolated as a function of c&tau;_&gamma;d for the low E_T^miss caloDPJ channel (SR_c^L), obtained for the different FRVZ MC signal mass points.

Acceptance times efficiency extrapolated as a function of c&tau;_&gamma;d for the high E_T^miss caloDPJ channel (SR_c^H), obtained for the different FRVZ MC signal mass points.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 17&nbsp;MeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 50&nbsp;MeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 400&nbsp;MeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 900&nbsp;MeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 2&nbsp;GeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 6&nbsp;GeV.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for FRVZ processes with a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson as a function of dark photon mean proper decay length for the ggF, WH and VBF analyses. The full combination is shown as solid or dashed black lines for a dark photon mass of 15&nbsp;GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The limits are shown for the SR_&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The limits are shown for the SR_c^L search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

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

Observed 95% CL upper limits on B(H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X) for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson, as a function of the dark-photon mean proper decay length c&tau;. The limits are shown for all search channels combined, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio is larger than unity.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Z boson pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the centrality of the system ζ(Zy). The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR1 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR2 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR3 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR4 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR5 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR6 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Observed and expected distributions of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search for SR7 under a background-only fit to data. The total background includes the $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$, $gg\to ZZ$, $q\overline{q}\to ZZ$ (EW), $VVV$, $t\overline{t}V$, $t\overline{t}$, $Z$+jets and $WZ$ processes. The distribution of the $(m_{A}, m_{H}) = (510, 380)$ GeV signal is normalised to the observed upper limit on the cross-section (29.9 fb).

Local p0-values in the $(m_{H}, m_{R})$ plane for the $R\to SH\to 4\ell+E^{\textrm{miss}}_{\textrm{T}}$ search with $m_{S} = 160$ GeV.

Local p0-values in the $(m_{H}, m_{A})$ plane for the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search.

The observed upper limits at 95% confidence level on $\sigma(gg\to R)\times \mathcal{B}(R\to SH)\times (H\to ZZ)$ across the $(m_{H}, m_{R})$ plane with $m_{S} = 160$ GeV for the $R\to SH\to 4\ell+E^{\textrm{miss}}_{\textrm{T}}$ search.

The expected upper limits at 95% confidence level on $\sigma(gg\to R)\times \mathcal{B}(R\to SH)\times (H\to ZZ)$ across the $(m_{H}, m_{R})$ plane with $m_{S} = 160$ GeV for the $R\to SH\to 4\ell+E^{\textrm{miss}}_{\textrm{T}}$ search.

The observed upper limits at 95% confidence level on $\sigma(gg\to A)\times \mathcal{B}(A\to ZH)\times (H\to ZZ)$ across the $(m_{H}, m_{A})$ plane for the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search.

The expected upper limits at 95% confidence level on $\sigma(gg\to A)\times \mathcal{B}(A\to ZH)\times (H\to ZZ)$ across the $(m_{H}, m_{A})$ plane for the $A\to ZH\to 4\ell+X$ search.

Cut-flow of the raw events at each selection stage for the $R\rightarrow SH\rightarrow 4\ell + E^{\textrm{miss}}_{\textrm{T}}$ signal with a mass point of $(m_R, m_H ) = (390, 220)$ GeV and $m_S = 160$ GeV. The events are shown for the individual and combined four-lepton channels. The SFOS denotes same flavour and opposite sign lepton pairs selection and the final selection is shown for each signal region. The final selection criteria for SR1 to SR3 are defined in Table 2 of the paper.

Cut-flow of the raw events at each selection stage for the $A\rightarrow Z(\rightarrow jj/\ell^+\ell^-/\textrm{invisible})H(\rightarrow 4\ell)$ signal with a mass point of $(m_A, m_H ) = (330, 220)$ GeV. The events are shown for the individual and combined four-lepton channels. The SFOS denotes same flavour and opposite sign lepton pairs selection and the final selection is shown for each signal region. The final selection criteria for SR1 to SR7 are defined in Table 2 of the paper.

Cut-flow of the raw events at each selection stage for the $A\rightarrow Z(\rightarrow 2\ell)H(\rightarrow 2\ell+jj/\textrm{invisible})$ signal with a mass point of $(m_A, m_H ) = (330, 220)$ GeV. The events are shown for the individual and combined four-lepton channels. The SFOS denotes same flavour and opposite sign lepton pairs selection and the final selection is shown for each signal region. The final selection criteria for SR1 to SR7 are defined in Table 2 of the paper.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for boosted.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumpition of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

The $m_{eJ}$ distribution in the boosted one electron channel.

The $m_{eeJ}$ distribution in the boosted two electron channel.

The $m_{\mu\mu J}$ distribution in the boosted two muon channel.

The $m_{jj}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $m_{jj}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

The $m_{eejj}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $m_{\mu\mu jj}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

The $h_{T}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $h_{T}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR1e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR2mu.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSROS2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSROS2mu.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSRSS2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSRSS2mu.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R}\to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to \mu\mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(N_{R})=200$ GeV. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to \mu \mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(N_{R})=200$ GeV. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Majorana neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to \mu\mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Majorana neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Dirac neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to \mu \mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Dirac neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post-fit distributions of $p_\textrm{T}^{\textrm{bal}}$ for the SR. Data are compared with background predictions, and six signal predictions covering a representative mediator mass and invisible fraction range are overlaid. The uncertainties include all systematic and statistical components. The last bin contains the overflow.

The post-fit distributions of |$\phi_{\textrm{max}} - \phi_{\textrm{min}}$| for the SR. Data are compared with background predictions, and six signal predictions covering a representative mediator mass and invisible fraction range are overlaid. The uncertainties include all systematic and statistical components. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.1.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.2.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.4.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.6.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.8.

Observed 95% CL limits on the t-channel production cross-section for semi-visible jets for R$_{inv}$ = 0.9.

The LO theory prediction (for λ=1).

Cutflow table for 6 signals of different mediator masses and R$_{inv}$ fractions.

Background-only fit to the observed numbers of events (black points) as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal fiducial cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{fid}}$, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the the ALP coupling constant, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands. Contours of the ALP natural width $\Gamma$ are illustrated by the smooth blue solid lines.

Fiducial region acceptance of signal events for coupling constant f$^{-1}=0.05$ TeV$^{-1}$. EL, SD, and DD stand for the exclusive, single-dissociative, and double-dissociative processes. The acceptances are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} $ , where $i$ specifies the process type, exclusive, single-dissociative, or double-dissociative.

Correction factors $A_{\textrm{X}}/A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ for the exclusive signal events with ALP coupling constant f$^{-1}$=0.05 TeV$^{-1}$, where acceptance $A_{\textrm{X}}$ and efficiency $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are defined in arXiv:2102.13405. $A_{\textrm{X}}$/$A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}}$, where $i$ specifies the process type.

Simulated ALP signal cutflow for $m_{\rm{X}}$=300 GeV and $m_{\rm{X}}$=1200 GeV. The yields are normalized to a luminosity of 14.6 fb$^{-1}$. Selections are applied for each side after the selection on acoplanarity. The union of the sets of selected events is taken finally.

Di-muon mass distribution for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region for data and expected background. The expected signal distribution for $m_a = 35$ GeV is shown assuming $\sigma(t\bar{t}a)\times \text{Br}(a\rightarrow\mu\mu) = 4$ fb. Rare background processes include $ZZ+$jets, $WWZ$, $WZZ$, $ZZZ$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$.

Fit of the Double Crystal Ball width as a function of the $a$-boson mass in the $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $t\bar{t}a$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 140$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 160$ GeV.

Comparison of the expected background with data in a region dominated by non-prompt background. The region is defined exactly like the $e\mu\mu$ signal region but requiring the two selected muons to have the same electrical charge.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $\mu\mu\mu$ channel.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t\bar{t}a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ hypothesis.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+$, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $e\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+ $, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Expected lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Observed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Cutflow for two signal mass points for $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV and $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, and one signal mass point for $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for $H^+ \rightarrow W a$ with $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV, $m_{a} = 30$ GeV for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. A cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Total yields in the $e\mu\mu$ and $\mu\mu\mu$ signal regions for the expected background and data after the profile likelihood fit for a $m_a = 30$ GeV signal mass hypothesis.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.