Corrected distributions of the normalized EEC within jets, differential in $ \left\langle p_{\rm T,jet} \right\rangle R_{L} $ at $R_{\rm jet} =$ 0.6 for one $p_{\rm T, jet}$ selection. Each distribution is normalized to integrate to one in $R_{L}$ prior to shifting.

Corrected distributions of the charge-selected EEC compared with the inclusive case for $R_{\rm jet}$ = 0.6 with a jet transverse momentum selection of 20 $ < p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 30 GeV/c.

Corrected distributions of the EEC charged ratio for $R_{\rm jet}$ = 0.6 with a jet transverse momentum selection of 20 $ < p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 30 GeV/c.

Corrected distributions of the normalized EEC differential in $R_{L}$ for $R_{\rm jet}=$ 0.4, with jet transverse momentum selections 15 $< p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 20 GeV/c and 30 $< p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 50 GeV/c

Corrected distributions of the normalized EEC within jets, differential in $ \left\langle p_{\rm T,jet} \right\rangle R_{L} $ at $R_{\rm jet} =$ 0.4 for one $p_{\rm T, jet}$ selection. Each distribution is normalized to integrate to one in $R_{L}$ prior to shifting.

Corrected distributions of the normalized EEC within jets, differential in $ \left\langle p_{\rm T,jet} \right\rangle R_{L} $ at $R_{\rm jet} =$ 0.4 for one $p_{\rm T, jet}$ selection. Each distribution is normalized to integrate to one in $R_{L}$ prior to shifting.

Corrected distributions of the normalized EEC within jets, differential in $ \left\langle p_{\rm T,jet} \right\rangle R_{L} $ at $R_{\rm jet} =$ 0.4 for one $p_{\rm T, jet}$ selection. Each distribution is normalized to integrate to one in $R_{L}$ prior to shifting.

Corrected distributions of the charge-selected EEC compared with the inclusive case for $R_{\rm jet}$ = 0.4 with a jet transverse momentum selection of 20 $ < p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 30 GeV/c.

Corrected distributions of the EEC charged ratio for $R_{\rm jet}$ = 0.4 with a jet transverse momentum selection of 20 $ < p_{\rm T, jet} <$ 30 GeV/c.

$A_{LL}$ as a function of parton-level invariant mass for dijets with the East barrel-endcap.

$A_{LL}$ as a function of parton-level invariant mass for dijets with the West barrel-endcap.

$A_{LL}$ as a function of parton-level invariant mass for dijets with the endcap-endcap.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 and ISR starting scale SpaceShower:pT0Ref = 1 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 and ISR starting scale SudakovCommon:pTmin=0.7 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{+}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Figure 4 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 5 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 6 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Figure 7 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 8 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 9 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at ppbar collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at UA1 and UA2.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at D0.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CDF.

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CMS.

Normalized distributions of EA in HT ($E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV) events selected by three ranges of leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$. Events require $p_\mathrm{T,jet}^\mathrm{raw,lead}>4~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ and the presence of a recoil jet.

Jet spectra per trigger for trigger-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|<\pi/3$) and recoil-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|>2\pi/3$). Jets are of $R=0.4$, and the offline trigger threshold is $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV. Spectra are shown for high- and low-EA events.

Ratio of the semi-inclusive jet spectra for trigger-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|<\pi/3$) and recoil-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|>2\pi/3$) in high-EA to low-EA events. Jets are of $R=0.4$, and the offline trigger threshold is $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV.

Distributions of the azimuthal separation between the two highest-$p_\mathrm{T}$ jets for high- and low-EA events for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$.

Ratios of distributions of the azimuthal separation between the two highest-$p_\mathrm{T}$ jets for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ for high-EA events relative to low-EA events.

Distributions of dijet $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ imbalance, $A_{J}$, for high- and low-EA events for two set of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ requirements.

Rastio of distributions of dijet $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ imbalance, $A_{J}$, for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ requirements for high-EA events relative to low-EA events.

Data from Figure 2, panel b, U+U, 0-0.5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel a, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel b, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel c, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel d, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel e, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel f, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, U+U, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, standard method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Invariant mass distributions of $^3\hbox{He}+\pi^-$ (A), $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}+\pi^+$ (B), $^4\hbox{He}+\pi^-$ (C) and $^4\overline{\hbox{He}}+\pi^+$ (D). The solid bands mark the signal invariant mass regions. The obtained signal count ($N_{\rm Sig}$), background count ($N_{\rm Bg}$), and signal significance are listed in each panel.

(A) (anti)hypernuclei yields versus $L/\beta\gamma$. The vertical error bars represent the statistical error only.

(A) (anti)hypernuclei yields versus $L/\beta\gamma$. The vertical error bars represent the statistical error only.

Our measured (anti)hypernuclei lifetimes compared with world data and theoretical predictions (solid triangles). Error bars and boxes represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. Vertical solid lines with shaded regions show the average lifetime of (anti)hypernuclei and their corresponding uncertainties. The vertical gray line shows the lifetime of the free $\Lambda$.

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $L/(\beta\gamma)$ obtained from the embedding Monte Carlo technique. Hypernuclei have stricter topological cuts than antihypernuclei to suppress knock-out $^3\hbox{He}$ and $^4\hbox{He}$, resulting in lower efficiencies.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $L/(\beta\gamma)$ obtained from the embedding Monte Carlo technique. Hypernuclei have stricter topological cuts than antihypernuclei to suppress knock-out $^3\hbox{He}$ and $^4\hbox{He}$, resulting in lower efficiencies.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

$dN/d(L/\beta\gamma)$ as a function of $L/\beta\gamma$ for $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$, and exponential fits to obtain their lifetimes.

Efficiency corrected $p_{T}$ spectra for $^3\hbox{He}$, $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}$, \htl, and \ahtl. The spectra are in the phase space of $|y|<0.7$ with only MB-triggered events. The spectra are not normalized by the number of events. The lines represent the BW-function fits.

Efficiency corrected $p_{T}$ spectra for $^3\hbox{He}$, $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}$, \htl, and \ahtl. The spectra are in the phase space of $|y|<0.7$ with only MB-triggered events. The spectra are not normalized by the number of events. The lines represent the BW-function fits.

Figure 1b, lower panel, subevent

Figure 2a, full-event

Figure 2b, subevent

Figure 3b

Figure 3c

Figure 3e

Figure 3f

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 5a, full-event

Figure 5b, subevent

Figure 5c, full-event

Figure 5d, subevent

Figure 6a

Figure 6b

Figure 7a, full-event

Figure 7b, subevent

Figure 7c, full-event

Figure 7d, subevent

Figure 8a, full-event

Figure 8b, subevent

Figure 9a, full-event

Figure 9b, subevent

Figure 10a, full-event

Figure 10b, subevent

Figure 11a, full-event

Figure 11b, full-event

Figure 11c, full-event

Figure 11d, subevent

Figure 11e, subevent

Figure 11f, subevent

Figure 12a, full-event

Figure 12b, subevent

Figure 13

Figure 14a

Figure 14b

Figure 2a, full-event

Figure 2b, subevent

Figure 3

Figure 4