Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $p_T$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of 4. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1900 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

The distribution of $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ in different $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ regions for simulated background events. Events with 0 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.2 (blue), 0.2 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.6 (red), and 0.6 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 1.0 (green) are compared. All distributions are normalized to unity. The similar $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ distributions demonstrate that $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ are decorrelated.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ in $K_{\mathrm{S}}^{\mathrm{0}}$ vertices in data (black) and simulation (purple). The lower panel shows the ratio between data and simulation.

The vertex reconstruction efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

The ML tagging efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

Number of predicted and observed events in the control, validation, and search regions. Predictions are calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) and fitting the data under the background-only hypothesis. Regions are organized by $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ values, and region names corresponding with Fig. 7 are given in parentheses. The predicted number of events that pass the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection and the observed number of events that pass or fail the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection are shown in seperate rows.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

Correlation matrix for the differential branching fraction extraction between different $q^2$ bins in the simultaneous fit.

The product of acceptance and efficiency ($A\epsilon$) of the $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^+\to\mathrm{K}^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ channel, as a function of the muon pair $q^2$, as measured in simulated signal events, after all the corrections applied. In the figure, regions corresponding to resonances are displayed with red markers.

Same as Table 5, but for the bins containing the J$\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) resonances.

Integrated branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^\pm \to \mathrm{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the low-$q^2$ region.

Ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ to $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\text{e}^+\text{e}^-)$, determined from the measured double ratio $R$(K) of these decays to the respective branching fractions of the decay chains $\text{B}^\pm\to\text{J/}\psi\text{K}^\pm$ with $\text{J/}\psi\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$.

Negative log likelihood function from the fit profiled as a function of the inverse ratio $R(\mathrm{K})^{-1}$.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with nominal width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 3\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with narrow width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 0.01\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$, where $\varphi$ is the radion. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$, where $V$ is a beyond-the-SM vector boson. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $Z_{R} \to ggg$. The acceptance is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$)/$N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings).

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed local significance for a 3-body decay $ggg$ resonance, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue solid line) and narrow width (red dashed line).

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $ggg$ resonance.

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $qqq$ resonance.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $Z_{R}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $G_{KK}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $q^{*}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to Z_{R} \to ggg$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to G_{KK} \to \varphi(gg)g$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Fiducial cross sections from the measurements of all observables, compared to predictions from different ttbb simulation approaches. For each of the normalized differential measurements the fiducial cross section in the respective phase space is also determined. In the paper only one representative observable is quoted for each fiducial phase space, while here the measured cross section with the uncertainties from the fit to the respective observable is summarized.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

Reconstruction level diffraction enhanced differential cross section spectrum for Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology corrected for the contribution from events with undetectable energy in the HF calorimeter adjacent to the rapidity gap, compared with the spectrum obtained with events satisfying the ZDC veto requirement $E_{ZDC−} < 1 \mathrm{~TeV}$ which selects only the events without lead nuclear break up (without correction for HF undetectable energy). Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_V/\kappa_f$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_V/\kappa_f$

Couplings resolved loops. Numbers are in $\kappa_i$.

Couplings effective loops.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the SM strength modifier for the HH production, per final state and combined.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the HH production cross section for different values of $\kappa_\lambda$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the HH production cross section for different values of $\kappa_{2V}$.

Signal strength modifiers per production channel tims decay mode $\mu_i^f$.

Couplings effective loops including the invisible and undetermined branching fractions.

$\kappa_{\lambda}$ 68 and 95% confidence intervals, from single and double Higgs productions.

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Observed correlations between the signal strength modifiers per production mode, $\mu_i$

Observed correlations between the signal strength modifiers per decay channel, $\mu^f$

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

Event by event net-proton multiplicity, $\Delta N_{p}$, distributions for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV in 0-10% and 30-40% centralities at midrapidity (|y| < 0.5) for the transverse momentum range of 0.4 < $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) < 2.0. These distributions are normalized by the corresponding numbers of events and are not corrected for detector efficiencies. Statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines. The dashed lines show the Skellam distributions for each collision energy and centrality. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the Skellam expectations.

Event by event net-proton multiplicity, $\Delta N_{p}$, distributions for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV in 0-10% and 30-40% centralities at midrapidity (|y| < 0.5) for the transverse momentum range of 0.4 < $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) < 2.0. These distributions are normalized by the corresponding numbers of events and are not corrected for detector efficiencies. Statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines. The dashed lines show the Skellam distributions for each collision energy and centrality. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the Skellam expectations.

Event by event net-proton multiplicity, $\Delta N_{p}$, distributions for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV in 0-10% and 30-40% centralities at midrapidity (|y| < 0.5) for the transverse momentum range of 0.4 < $p_{T}$ (GeV/c) < 2.0. These distributions are normalized by the corresponding numbers of events and are not corrected for detector efficiencies. Statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines. The dashed lines show the Skellam distributions for each collision energy and centrality. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the Skellam expectations.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Integrated Fiducial Higgs cross section. The first uncertainty is the combined statistical uncertainty, the second is the combined systematic uncertainty. As described in the publication, the fiducial volume for 7 and 8 TeV is different than for 13 TeV.

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda, net-proton and net-kaon cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) collision.

Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C2/C1 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from HRG.

Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from HRG.