Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'Two-year-combined $\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of z at $0 < \eta_{jet} < 1.0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of z at $0 < \eta_{jet} < 1.0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of z at $-1.0 < \eta_{jet} < 0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ as a function of z at $-1.0 < \eta_{jet} < 0$'

'particle jet pt as a function of $\Lambda$ z'

'particle jet pt as a function of $\overline{\Lambda}$ z'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $0 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 1.2$'

'Two-year-combined $\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'Two-year-combined $\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at $-1.2 < \eta_{\Lambda(\overline{\Lambda})} < 0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of z at $0 < \eta_{jet} < 1.0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of z at $0 < \eta_{jet} < 1.0$'

'$\Lambda$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of z at $-1.0 < \eta_{jet} < 0$'

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{TT}$ as a function of z at $-1.0 < \eta_{jet} < 0$'

'particle jet pt as a function of $\Lambda$ z'

'particle jet pt as a function of $\overline{\Lambda}$ z'

The observed 90% C.L upper limit on neutrino effective millicharge (\delta_{Q}[e_{0}]) in SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range.

The observerd 90% C.L upper limit on solar axion g_{ae} coupling constant in valid across the mass range for SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of Solar Axion Mass .

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on axion like particle (ALP) coupling constant (g_{ae}) in SR1. ALP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of ALP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on hidden photon (HP) coupling constant squared (\kappa^2) in SR1. HP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of HP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-independent (cm^2) WIMP cross-section vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2), using the Migdal signal pathway. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on neutrons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on protons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

$P_z$ sine coefficients of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of transverse momentum in isobar collisions at 200 GeV.

$P_z$ sine coefficients of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of the number of participants in isobar collisions at 200 GeV. The number of participants for isobar collisions were taken from Table III of Phys.Rev.C105, 014901 (2022) and averaged. Same data as the centrality dependence in Fig. 3.

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) invariant yields in different centrality intervals of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV. The vertical bars and the boxes represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The horizontal bars indicate the bin width.

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) $R_{\rm AA}$ (red circles) as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV, compared with STAR (yellow stars) and PHENIX (green squares) published results, and Duke ((modified Langevin transport model, blue line) and PHSD (parton-hadron-string dynamics model, orange line) model calculations. Vertical bars and boxes around data points represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties from both Au+Au and $p$+$p$ measurements, respectively. Boxes at unity show the global uncertainties, which for this analysis include the 8% global uncertainty on $p$+$p$ reference and the $N_{\rm coll}$ uncertainties. The left box is for PHENIX and the right one for STAR.

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) $R_{\rm AA}$ (red circles) as a function of $N_{\rm part}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV, compared with PHENIX measurements (green squares), and Duke (blue line) and PHSD (orange line) model calculations. Vertical bars and boxes around data points represent statistical and systematic uncertainties from Au+Au measurements, respectively. The gray band represents the $N_{\rm coll}$ uncertainties. The boxes at unity show the global uncertainties including the total uncertainties of the $p$+$p$ reference.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

The scaling index, $\beta_{q}$ ($q=$ 3-6), as a function of $q-1$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7-200 GeV.

The scaling exponent ($\nu$), as a function of average number of participant nucleons ($\langle N_{part}\rangle$), in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6-200 GeV. The data with the largest number of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ correspond to the most central collisions (0-5\%), and the rest of the points are for 5-10\%, 10-20\%, 20-30\% and 30-40\% centrality, respectively. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 are: 338,289,225,158,108. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV are: 343,299,234,166,114. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV are: 342,294,230,162,111. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV are: 346,292,228,161,111. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV are 347,294,230,164,114. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV are:351,299,234,168,117.

Collision energy dependence of the scaling exponent in the 0-10% and 10-40% centrality collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7-200 GeV

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{3}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{4}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{5}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{6}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 5-10\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 10-20\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 20-30\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 30-40\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 0-5% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 5-10% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 10-20% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 20-30% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 30-40% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_5$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 39.0 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{3,23}$ and $\rho_{5,23}$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $NSC(2,3)$ and $NSC(2,4)$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $NSC(2,3)$ and $NSC(2,4)$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.