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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed exclusion limits in the plane of DM particle mass and interaction scale, with the region below the solid curve excluded at a 90% CL. The background-only expectations are represented by their median (dashed line) and by the 68% and 95% CL bands. A lower bound of the validity of the EFT is indicated by the upper edge of the hatched area. The four curves, corresponding to different g and R values, represent the lower bound on $M_{*}$ for which 50% and 80% of signal events have a pair of DM particles with an invariant mass less than $g\sqrt{M_{*}^{3}/m_{t}}$, where $g = 4\pi$ and $g = 2\pi$ respectively.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* RH hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* VL hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+b hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+t hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Mean $p_T$, leading in-jet charged particle.

Mean $p_T$, charged particle jets, $p^{ch.jet}_T > 5$ GeV, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$.

Charged jet rate, $p^\text{ch.jet}_T > 5$ GeV, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$.

Charged jet rate, $p^\text{ch.jet}_T > 30$ GeV, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$.

Jet $p_T$ spectrum, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$, $10 < N_\text{ch} \le 30$.

Jet $p_T$ spectrum, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$, $30 < N_\text{ch} \le 50$.

Jet $p_T$ spectrum, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$, $50 < N_\text{ch} \le 80$.

Jet $p_T$ spectrum, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$, $80 < N_\text{ch} \le 110$.

Jet $p_T$ spectrum, $|\eta^{ch.jet}| < 1.9$, $110 < N_\text{ch} \le 140$.

Intrajet ring $p_{T}$ density, $10 < N_\text{ch} \le 30$.

Intrajet ring $p_{T}$ density, $30 < N_\text{ch} \le 50$.

Intrajet ring $p_{T}$ density, $50 < N_\text{ch} \le 80$.

Intrajet ring $p_{T}$ density, $80 < N_\text{ch} \le 110$.

Intrajet ring $p_{T}$ density, $110 < N_\text{ch} \le 140$.

Observed data distributions as a 1D histogram with statistical errors representing the event yields as a function of the reconstructed M(lnuJ), for the electron low purity channel. The value of mass on the x axis is given for the center of the bin.

Observed data distributions as a 1D histogram with statistical errors representing the event densities as a function of the reconstructed M(llJ), for the muon high purity channel. The value of mass on the x axis is given for the center of the bin.

Observed data distributions as a 1D histogram with statistical errors representing the event densities as a function of the reconstructed M(llJ), for the muon low purity channel. The value of mass on the x axis is given for the center of the bin.

Observed data distributions as a 1D histogram with statistical errors representing the event densities as a function of the reconstructed M(llJ), for the electron high purity channel. The value of mass on the x axis is given for the center of the bin.

Observed data distributions as a 1D histogram with statistical errors representing the event densities as a function of the reconstructed M(llJ), for the electron low purity channel. The value of mass on the x axis is given for the center of the bin.

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the CS frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(1S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(2S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the CS frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the HX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Phi in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Theta-Phi in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.0-0.6.

Distribution of Lambda-Tilde in the PX frame for Y(3S) production in the |y| range 0.6-1.2.

Estimated number of signal events for Y(1S) production.

Estimated number of signal events for Y(2S) production.

Estimated number of signal events for Y(3S) production.