Parton dijet $M_{inv}$ vs $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties, for topology C.

Parton dijet $M_{inv}$ vs $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties, for topology D.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (statistical and systematics) for the inclusive jet measurements.The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (statistical and systematics) for the inclusive jet measurements coupling with the forward-forward dijet measurements (topology A). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (statistical and systematics) for the inclusive jet measurements coupling with the forward-forward dijet measurements (topology B). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (statistical and systematics) for the inclusive jet measurements coupling with the forward-forward dijet measurements (topology C). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (statistical and systematics) for the inclusive jet measurements coupling with the forward-forward dijet measurements (topology D). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) for forward-forward dijet measurements (topology A). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology A) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology B). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology A) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology C). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology A) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology D). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) for forward-forward dijet measurements (topology B). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology B) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology C). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology B) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology D). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) for forward-forward dijet measurements (topology C). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) coupling forward-forward dijet measurements (topology C) with forward-central dijet measurements (topology D). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties (systematics only) for forward-forward dijet measurements (topology D). The relative luminosity and beam polarization uncertainties are not included because they are the same for all points.

B.R. times dN/dy of $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H vs y in 3 GeV 10-50% Au+Au collisions

B.R. times dN/dy of $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H vs y in 3 GeV 10-50% Au+Au collisions

B.R. times dN/dy at |y|<0.5 of $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H vs B.R in 3 GeV 0-10% Au+Au collisions

B.R. times dN/dy at |y|<0.5 of $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H vs B.R in 3 GeV 0-10% Au+Au collisions

$^{3}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.25<y<0, Au+Au 3 GeV, 0-10%

$^{3}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.5<y<-0.25, Au+Au 3 GeV, 0-10%

$^{3}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.25<y<0, Au+Au 3 GeV, 10-50%

$^{3}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.5<y<-0.25, Au+Au 3 GeV, 10-50%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.25<y<0, Au+Au 3 GeV, 0-10%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.5<y<-0.25, Au+Au 3 GeV, 0-10%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.75<y<-0.5, Au+Au 3 GeV, 0-10%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.25<y<0, Au+Au 3 GeV, 10-50%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.5<y<-0.25, Au+Au 3 GeV, 10-50%

$^{4}_{\Lambda}$H $p_T$ spectra times B.R., -0.75<y<-0.5, Au+Au 3 GeV, 10-50%

95% CL expected and observed frequentist upper limit for the LbL cross section within the $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$ search region.

95% expected and observed one-dimensional limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters, when the other parameter is set to zero. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

95% expected and observed limits on $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ anomalous LbyL production parameters. The parametric elliptic form is assumed: $a_0\zeta_1^2+a_1\zeta_1\zeta_2+a_2\zeta_2^2=1$. This corresponds to a search region of $m_{\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV, $0.070 < \xi^+ < 0.111$, and $0.070 < \xi^- < 0.138$.

Observed likelihood scan in the ($\kappa_\tau$, $\tilde{\kappa}_\tau$) plane.

Observed likelihood scan in the ($\alpha^{\mathrm{H}\tau\tau}$, $\mu_{\text{ggH}}$) plane. The $\mu_{\text{qqH}}$ signal strength modifier is profiled.

Observed likelihood scan in the ($\alpha^{\mathrm{H}\tau\tau}$, $\mu_{\text{qqH}}$) plane. The $\mu_{\text{ggH}}$ signal strength modifier is profiled.

Observed likelihood scan in the ($\mu_{\text{qqH}}$, $\mu_{\text{ggH}}$) plane. The value of $\alpha^{\mathrm{H}\tau\tau}$ is profiled.

Two-dimensional distributions of the leading electron vs the leading muon $|d_{0}|$, for the events that pass the e$\mu$ preselection. Data events and $\tilde{t} \to b\ell$ signal events with a $\tilde{t}$ mass of 700 GeV and a proper decay length of 10 mm that correspond to 2018 data-taking conditions are shown. In each $|d_{0}|$-$|d_{0}|$ bin, the number of events divided by the bin area is plotted. The inclusive signal region covers the region between 100 $\mu$m and 10 cm in each $|d_{0}|$ variable shown.

Two-dimensional distributions of the leading vs the subleading electron $|d_0|$, for the events that pass the ee preselection. Data events and $\tilde{t} \to b\ell$ signal events with a $\tilde{t}$ mass of 700 GeV and a proper decay length of 10 mm that correspond to 2018 data-taking conditions are shown. In each $|d_{0}|$-$|d_{0}|$ bin, the number of events divided by the bin area is plotted. The inclusive signal region covers the region between 100 $\mu$m and 10 cm in each $|d_{0}|$ variable shown.

Two-dimensional distributions of the leading vs the subleading muon $|d_{0}|$, for the events that pass the $\mu\mu$ preselection. Data events and $\tilde{t} \to b\ell$ signal events with a $\tilde{t}$ mass of 700 GeV and a proper decay length of 10 mm that correspond to 2018 data-taking conditions are shown. In each $|d_{0}|$-$|d_{0}|$ bin, the number of events divided by the bin area is plotted. The inclusive signal region covers the region between 100 $\mu$m and 10 cm in each $|d_{0}|$ variable shown.

The number of observed and estimated background events in each channel and SR, with a representative signal overlaid. For each background estimate and signal yield, the total uncertainty (statistical plus systematic) is given. The distributions shown correspond to the events before the final maximum likelihood fit to the data.

The number of observed and estimated background events in each channel and SR in 2016, with a representative signal overlaid. For each background estimate and signal yield, the total uncertainty is given. The distributions shown correspond to the events before the final maximum likelihood fit to the data.

The number of observed and estimated background events in each channel and SR in 2017 and 2018, with a representative signal overlaid. For each background estimate and signal yield, the total uncertainty is given. The distributions shown correspond to the events before the final maximum likelihood fit to the data.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane, for the three channels combined. The $\tilde{t} \to b\ell $ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to b\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane, for the three channels combined. The $\tilde{t} \to d\ell$ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to d\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane, for the three channels combined. The $\tilde{t} \to b\ell $ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to b\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane, for the three channels combined. The $\tilde{t} \to d\ell$ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to d\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark proper decay length ($c\tau_0$) as a function of its mass, for the e$\mu$, ee, and $\mu\mu$ channels, and their combination. The $\tilde{t} \to b\ell $ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to b\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton.

The 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived top squark proper decay length ($c\tau_0$) as a function of its mass, for the e$\mu$, ee, and $\mu\mu$ channels, and their combination. The $\tilde{t} \to d\ell$ process is shown. These limits assume $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to d\ell)$ is 100%, and each lepton has an equal probability of being an electron, a muon, or a tau lepton.

The 95% CL constraints on the long-lived slepton $c\tau_{0}$ and mass. The $\tilde{\tau}$ and co-NLSP limits are shown for the three channels combined, while the $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ NLSP limits are shown for the ee and $\mu\mu$ channels, respectively. These limits assume that the superpartners of the left- and right-handed leptons are degenerate in mass and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\ell} \to \ell\tilde{G})$ is 100%. The area to the left of the solid curves represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed lines indicate the expected limits.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived slepton production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane. The co-NLSP limits are shown for the three channels combined. These limits assume that the superpartners of the left- and right-handed leptons are degenerate in mass and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\ell} \to \ell\tilde{G})$ is 100%. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the long-lived slepton production cross section, in the $c\tau_0$ -- mass plane. The co-NLSP limits are shown for the three channels combined. These limits assume that the superpartners of the left- and right-handed leptons are degenerate in mass and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\ell} \to \ell\tilde{G})$ is 100%. The area to the left of the black curve represents the observed exclusion region, and the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their 68% confidence intervals.

The 95% CL upper limits on the $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ branching fraction as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV and a long-lived scalar with a mass of 30 GeV or 50 GeV, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curve represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 300 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 400 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 600 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 800 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}, \mathrm{S} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 1000 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the three channels combined. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons or two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ branching fraction as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV and a long-lived scalar with a mass of 30 GeV or 50 GeV, for the ee channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons. The area above the solid (dashed) curve represents the observed (expected) exclusion region. The curves are not smooth because very few ee channel events pass the preselection for the Higgs boson and scalar masses shown in this figure.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 600 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the ee channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 1000 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the ee channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two electrons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ branching fraction as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV and a long-lived scalar with a mass of 30 GeV or 50 GeV, for the $\mu\mu$ channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curve represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 600 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the $\mu\mu$ channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S}\mathrm{S} \to 4\ell$ as a function of $c\tau_0$, for a 1000 GeV Higgs boson and several long-lived scalar masses, for the $\mu\mu$ channel only. These limits assume that $\mathcal{B}(H \to SS)=100\%$ and each S has a 50% probability of decaying to two muons. The area above the solid (dashed) curves represents the observed (expected) exclusion region.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin, distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY and distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

The DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample compared to predictions from the pure DPS sample in PYTHIA 8 (P8) and KATIE (KT). The distributions are normalized to unity.

The results of the template fit for the POWHEG (PW) NLO 2 -> 2 model without the hard MPI removed. As the DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample carries a statistical and systematic uncertainty, so does the total fitted sample.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

(a) The HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) cross section at STAR in $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV from $2012$ (filled circles) and the FONLL calculations (curves). (b) Ratio of data over FONLL calculations. The vertical bars and the boxes represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

$z_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $15 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 20$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $20 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 25$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $25 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 30$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $30 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 40$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $15 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 20$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $20 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 25$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $25 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 30$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $30 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 40$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

tracking efficiency in pp collisions as a function of track momentum

tracking efficiency in AuAu collisions as a function of track momentum

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the HP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP VBF category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

The distributions of the transfer factor ($\alpha$) versus $m_T$ in the LP ggF/DY category is shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for high-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity ggF/DY SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Distributions of mT for low-purity VBF SR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals (normalized to 10 fb) are shown in the plot. Nonresonant background corresponds to the Z+jets and W+jets events. Resonant background corresponds to the ttbar, single top, and di/tri-boson events.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the R -> ZZ branching fraction versus the radion mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (Drell-Yan) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' (W') production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the W' -> WZ branching fraction versus the W' mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (gluon-gluon fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production (vector boson fusion) cross section and the G -> ZZ branching fraction versus the graviton mass.