Dependence of the parameter $A$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $R$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $c$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $R$ on the two scattered proton transverse momenta.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the exponential parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the Orear-type parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the power-law parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

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

The ratios between the hydrodynamic probes and their Taylor expansions. The ratios are plotted as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The ratios between the hydrodynamic probes and their Taylor expansions. The ratios are plotted as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured skewness $\gamma_1^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" skewness $\gamma_{1,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured kurtosis $\gamma_2^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" kurtosis $\gamma_{2,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured superskewness $\gamma_3^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" superskewness $\gamma_{3,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

Transverse dilepton-$p_{T}^{miss}$ mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR2 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR3 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR3 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dijet $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Lepton-dijet $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Maximum $p_T$ of the visible particles divided by the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between jets, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and missing $p_T$, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the dijet system, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta R$ distance between the leptons, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the di-lepton system and the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the di-jet system, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton-dijet system and the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Leading lepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the top control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Trailing lepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the top control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in the Drell-Yan control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Missing $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the Drell-Yan control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Missing $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the $WW$ control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the $WW$ control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Minimum $p_T$ of the visible particles divided by the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the top control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between jets, for selected events in the top control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and missing $p_T$, for selected events in the $W$+jets control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the dijet system, for selected events in the $W$+jets control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR1 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR2 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR3 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel for the full data set in the top control region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel for the full data set in the $W$+jets control region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel in the 2016 signal region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel in the 2017+2018 signal region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates over the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Measured partial decay rates $\Delta\Gamma$ (in units of $10^{-15}$ GeV) using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Average of normalized decay rates that are determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the partial decay rates determined with the matrix inversion unfolding method for the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Observed upper limits at 90% CL on the square of the kinetic mixing coefficient $\epsilon$ in the minimal model of a dark photon

Observed upper limits at 90% CL on the mixing angle $\theta_H$ for the type IV 2HDM+S scenario with fixed $tan\beta=0.5$

The combined efficiency of the dimuon scouting trigger and the MVA muon selection, averaged between 2017 and 2018, weighted by the integrated luminosity of each year. The trigger and selection efficiencies are also included in the table.

Theory cross-section times branching fraction to muons times acceptance for the dark photon and 2HDM+S models.

'$\overline{\Lambda}$ $D_{LL}$ 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'

Correlation matrix of the unfolding uncertainty between the inclusive-jet measurement and the previous dijet measurement. Correlations are given in percent.

Summary of different determinations of $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ at NNLO or higher order, adapted from PDG, see references therein. The red points are included in the PDG world average. The averages from each sub-field are shown as yellow bands and the world average as a blue band. A recent measurement from CMS using jet cross sections and the latest determination from HERAPDF, which are not yet included in the world average, are shown in green. The current determination, assuming half-correlated and half-uncorrelated scale uncertainties, is shown in black.

Value of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ as a function of the scale $\mu$. The data points indicate determinations from measurements that were performed close to the indicated scale. The uncertainties represent the full uncertainty of each determination. All depicted results were obtained at least at NNLO. They are based on data from $e^+e^-$, $ep$ and $pp$ collisions, as well as from $\tau$ lepton decays and quarkonium states. The solid blue line shows the PDG world average. Also shown are the $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ values corresponding to each data point.

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.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

$P_{\rm H}$ measurements are shown as a function of hyperon $p_{\rm T}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 and 27 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented as lines while systematic uncertainties are represented as boxes. There is no observed dependence of $P_{\rm H}$ on $p_{\rm T}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 or 27 GeV, consistent with previous observations.

$P_{\rm H}$ measurements are shown as a function of hyperon $y$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 and 27 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented as lines while systematic uncertainties are represented as boxes. The data set at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 GeV takes advantage of STAR upgrades to reach larger $|y|$.

$\gamma p \rightarrow J/\psi p$ differential cross sections 10.36–11.44 GeV beam energy range, average $t$ and beam energy in bins of $t$. The first cross section uncertainties are statistical, and the second are systematic. The overall average beam energy is 10.82 GeV. There is an additional fully correlated systematic uncertainty of 19.5% on the total cross section, not included here.

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Au+Au 200 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru (combined) 200 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Au+Au 27 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Au+Au 200 GeV.

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr 200 GeV

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Au+Au 27 GeV.

Comparison of the $m_{miss}$ shapes for the simulated signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as describe in the text, for a generated $m_{X}$ mass of 1000 GeV. The distributions are shown for single(+z)-single(−z) proton reconstruction categories.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for different proton reconstruction categories in the $Z \rightarrow \mu\mu $ analysis, and for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the positive CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the negative CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The di-proton invariant mass is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The $m_{miss}$ is shown.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z\rightarrow ee$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z\rightarrow \mu\mu$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $Z$ analysis.

Upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow ppZ/\gamma X$ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $m_X$. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The plot corresponds to the $\gamma$ analysis.

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 full experimental statistical correlations for the averaged spectrum are shown. The index of the entry corresponds to the index of the corresponding central value.

The full experimental systematic correlations for the averaged spectrum are shown. The index of the entry corresponds to the index of the corresponding central value.

The individual measured shapes. The 160 entries correspond to the 10 bins in w, cosThetaL, cosThetaV, and chi. Index 0-40: B0 --> D* e nu Index 40-80: B0 --> D* mu nu Index 80-120: B+ --> D* e nu Index 120-160: B+ --> D* mu nu For the binning see the file 'Binning.yaml'.

The full experimental statistical correlations for the individual spectra are shown. The index of the entry corresponds to the index of the corresponding central value.

The full experimental systematic correlations for the individual spectra are shown. The index of the entry corresponds to the index of the corresponding central value.

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.

Best fit of the cross section.

Expected and observed upper limits on the AQGC operators $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$, with no unitarization. The $y$ axis shows the limit on the ratio of the observed cross section to the cross section predicted for each anomalous coupling value ($\sigma_\mathrm{AQGC}$).

Limits on LEP-like dimension-6 anomalous quartic gauge coupling parameters, with and without unitarization via a clipping procedure.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption of vanishing $WWZ\gamma$ couplings to eliminate some parameters. When quoting limits on one of the operators, the other is fixed to zero. The results for $|f_{M,0}/\Lambda^{4}|$ and $|f_{M,4}/\Lambda^{4}|$ are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV, when the other parameter is fixed to the SM value of zero.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ and $a^W_C$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption that all $f_{M,i}$ except one are equal to zero. The results are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$ with unitarization imposed by clipping the signal model at 1.4 TeV. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^Z_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^Z$ and $a_C^Z$ couplings, respectively.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

UrQMD results of proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

'Identified transverse momentum spectra of $\pi^{-}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV'

'Identified transverse momentum spectra of $K^{-}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV'

'Identified transverse momentum spectra of $\bar{p}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV'

'Average transverse momentum as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for $\pi^{+}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'Average transverse momentum as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for $K^{+}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'Average transverse momentum as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for p at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'dN/dy scaled by 0.5 × $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for $\pi^{+}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'dN/dy scaled by 0.5 × $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for $K^{+}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'dN/dy scaled by 0.5 × $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for p at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'dN/dy scaled by 0.5 × $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ for $\bar{p}$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$\pi^{−}$/$\pi^{+}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$K^{−}$/$K^{+}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$\bar{p}$/p ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$K^{+}$/$\pi^{+}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$K^{-}$/$\pi^{-}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'p/$\pi^{+}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

'$\bar{p}$/$\pi^{-}$ ratio as a function of $\langle$N$_{part}$$\rangle$ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 193 GeV.'

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}$ of $\phi$ to $\bar{p}$ ratio

Difference of $v_{2}$ between particle and anti-particle

Difference of $v_{3}$ between particle and anti-particle

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $m_{\rm ee}$ for $p_{\rm T,ee} < 0.1$ GeV/$c$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.4 $< m_{\rm ee} < 0.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.7 $< m_{\rm ee} < 1.1$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 1.1 $< m_{\rm ee} < 2.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.4 $< m_{\rm ee} < 0.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.7 $< m_{\rm ee} < 1.1$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 1.1 $< m_{\rm ee} < 2.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 20.0--30.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 50.0--60.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Fig. 6b: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Away and Toward regions after the subtraction of Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ distributions in the transverse region for p-Pb collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. 7a: $<p_{\rm T}>$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Toward (left) and Away (right) regions after the subtraction of transverse region for pp collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. 7b: $<p_{\rm T}>$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Toward (left) and Away (right) regions after the subtraction of transverse region for p-Pb collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A1: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.15 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A2: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 1.0 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A3: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.15 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A4: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 1.0 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Example of combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions and the extracted yields as a function of $\cos \theta^*$ for $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons. \textbf{a)} example of $\phi \rightarrow K^+ + K^-$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{b)} example of $K^{*0} (\overline{K^{*0}}) \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+} (K^{+} \pi^{-})$ invariant mass distributions, with combinatorial background subtracted, integrated over $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{c)} extracted yields of $\phi$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$; \textbf{d)} extracted yields of $K^{*0}$ as a function of $\cos \theta^*$.

Efficiency corrected $\phi$-meson yields as a function of cos$\theta$* and corresponding fits with Eq.1 in the method section.

Efficiency and acceptance corrected $K^{*0}$-meson yields as a function of cos$\theta$* and corresponding fits with Eq.4 in the method section.

$\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ obtained from 1st- and 2nd-order event planes. The red stars (gray squares) show the $\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ as a function of beam energy, obtained with the 2nd-order (1st-order) EP.

$\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ with respect to different quantization axes. $\phi$-meson $\rho_{00}$ as a function of beam energy, for the out-of-plane direction (stars) and the in-plane direction (diamonds). Curves are fits based on theoretical calculations with a $\phi$-meson field. The corresponding $G_s^{(y)}$ values obtained from the fits are shown in the legend.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $\phi$ for different collision energies. The gray squares and red stars are results obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of transverse momentum for $K^{*0}$ for different collision energies.

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

$\rho_{00}$ as a function of centrality for $\phi$ (upper panels) and $K^{*0}$ (lower panels). The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for the $K^{*0}$ meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.}

Global spin alignment measurement of $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ vector mesons in Au+Au collisions at 0-20\% centrality. The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for $K^{*0}$-meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.

Global spin alignment measurement of $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ vector mesons in Au+Au collisions at 0-20\% centrality. The solid squares and stars are results for the $\phi$ meson, obtained with the 1st- and 2nd-order EP, respectively. The solid circles are results for $K^{*0}$-meson, obtained with the 2nd-order EP.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+p collisions at rapidity 1.2 < |y| < 2.2. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Final state radiation correction used in the $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-p_{T}^{Z}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Measured total $Z$-boson cross-section for different datasets. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.