Fully corrected assorted $\pi^{0}$-hadron conditional pair distributions for $d$+Au collisions centrality 0-88% and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^0$s are within 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$ and are correlated with hadrons with $p_{T,assoc}$ of 1.5-2 GeV/$c$, 2-3GeV/$c$, 3-4 GeV/$c$, and 4-5 GeV/$c$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron azimuthal correlations from minimumbias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (4−6 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of $N_{coll}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (1–2.5 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of centrality for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (2–3 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Near-side and far-side $p_{out}$ distributions for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions obtained from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation. The trigger is 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$, the associated particle is 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5.0 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlations for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions. The trigger pions are 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 6 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlation for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for several different trigger $p_T$s for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

The comparison of the $p_{out}$ distribution at the near-side and far-side between central $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. Results are obtained for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations with the associated hadron range 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and trigger pion range of 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $x_E$ distribution from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation at the near-side and far-side between minimum bias $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^{\pm}$ are from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The fitted fractional change in $dN/d_{x_E}$ per unit $p_{T,trig}$ of the far-side conditional yield for different ranges of $x_E$.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for charged pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for neutral pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

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^-$)

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.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.

This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ and $v_2$/($\epsilon * N^{1/3}_{part} * n_q$) vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV. The values of $v_2$ and $p_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 14, and the values of $v_2$, $n_q$, and $KE_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 18.

The minimum $\chi^2$ and the parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ for each of the five centrality selections. The best fit parameters are determined by averaging all parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ contour. The errors correspond to the standard deviation of the parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ $\chi^2$ contour.

Fit parameters for each particle species using Equations $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C \cdot$ ($N_{part}$)$^{\alpha_{part}}$ and $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C^{\prime} \cdot$ ($N_{coll}$)$^{\alpha_{coll}}$.

Values of the parameters $n_{pp}$ and $x$ from fitting Equation $R \equiv \frac{dN/dy}{N_{part}}$ = (1-$x$) $\cdot n_{pp} \frac{1}{2}$ + $x \cdot n_{pp} \frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ = $n_{pp}$ [$\frac{1}{2}$ + $x$($\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ - $\frac{1}{2})$]to the observed $dN$/$dy$ per $N_{part}$.

Invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for (anti)$p$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for (anti)$p$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

The integrated mean $p_T$ for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons produced in the five different classes of event centrality.

The expansion parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ as a function of the number of participants.

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

Distribution of an input to the BDT classifier in the $3\ell$ category: The linear discrimminant $p_{T}^{miss,LD}$. The discriminant is defined by the relation $p_{T}^{miss,LD} = 0.6 p_{T}^{miss} + 0.4 H_{T}^{miss}$, where $H_{T}^{miss}$ corresponds to the magnitude of the vector $p_{T}$ sum of all electrons, muons, taus and small radius jets passing the selection critertia, and $p_{T}^{miss}$ represents the missing transverse momentum vector computed as the negative vector $p_{T}$ sum of all the particles reconstructed by the PF algorithm in the event.

Distributions of the transverse mass $m_{T}$ of the lepton that is not originating from the Z boson decay and the missing transverse momentum in the $3\ell$/WZ control region. The distributions expected for the WZ and ZZ as well as for other background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit used in the signal extraction.

Distributions of the four lepton invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ in the $4\ell$/ZZ control region. The distributions expected for the ZZ as well as for other background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit used in the signal extraction.

Distributions of the transverse mass $m_{T}$ of the leading lepton and the missing transverse momentum in the $2\ell$(ss) control region. The distributions expected for the misidentified $\ell$ background as well as for other background processes is shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the background-only ML fit, in which the HH signal is constrained to be zero.

Distributions of the reconstructed HH mass $m_{HH}$ in the $2\ell+2 au_{h}$ control region. The distributions expected for the misidentified $\ell/ au_{h}$ background as well as for other background processes is shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the background-only ML fit, in which the HH signal is constrained to be zero.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $2\ell$(ss) category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $3\ell$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $4\ell$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $3\ell+1 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $2\ell+2 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $1\ell+3 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $4 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the SM HH production cross section, obtained for both individual search categories and from a simultaneous fit of all seven categories combined.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the seven different categories as well as their combination. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM. The limits are shown for all seven search categories as well as for their combination.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{t})=(1.05, 1.74)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(\kappa_{\lambda},\kappa_{t})=(-3.54, -1.70)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{\lambda}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{\lambda})=(-0.66, 5.33)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $2\ell$(ss) category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $3\ell$ category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

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.

Efficiency corrected cumulants of net-charge distributions as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ from Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\kappa \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

The energy dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$, $S \sigma$, $\kappa \sigma^2$, and $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of netcharge distributions for central (0%–5%) Au+Au collisions.

The energy dependence of the chemical freeze-out parameter $\mu_B$.

Away-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in $p+p$ collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

$p+p$ yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tracking efficiency in pp collisions as a function of track momentum

tracking efficiency in AuAu collisions as a function of track momentum

The Au+Au 200 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Au+Au 54.4 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Au+Au 39 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Au+Au 27 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Au+Au 19.6 GeV measurements of the two- and four-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Au+Au 11.5 GeV measurements of the two- and four-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The U+U 193 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

The Cu+Au 200 GeV measurements of the two-, four- and six-particle elliptic flow and the elliptic flow fluctuations.

\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.

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

$d$+Au vs centrality vs $y$. (All uncertainties are absolute. The sys. A uncertainty includes both the statistical uncertainty and the point-to-point uncorrelated systematic, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{CP}$ value. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{CP}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{CP}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

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.).

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL pure electron coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL pure muon coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL pure muon coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL pure tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL pure tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL mixed electron-muon coupling scenario

DTwo-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL mixed electron-muon coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL mixed electron-tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL mixed electron-tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL mixed muon-tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL mixed muon-tau lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Majorana HNL democratic lepton coupling scenario

Two-dimensional exclusion limits for Dirac HNL democratic lepton coupling scenario

Lower limits on Majorana HNL mass for fixed proper decay length of $c\tau=0.1\,\text{mm}$

Lower limits on Dirac HNL mass for fixed proper decay length of $c\tau=0.1\,\text{mm}$

Lower limits on Majorana HNL mass for fixed proper decay length of $c\tau=1\,\text{mm}$

Lower limits on Dirac HNL mass for fixed proper decay length of $c\tau=1\,\text{mm}$

Lower limits on Majorana HNL proper decay length for fixed mass of 4.5 GeV

Lower limits on Dirac HNL proper decay length for fixed mass of 4.5 GeV

Lower limits on Majorana HNL proper decay length for fixed mass of 8 GeV

Lower limits on Dirac HNL proper decay length for fixed mass of 8 GeV

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

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

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

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

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.

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 $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

High $p_T$ ($p_T$ > 6 GeV/$c$) integrated $v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ for (a) $\pi^0$ (b) inclusive photon, and (c) direct photon. Results are shown with both reaction plane detectors$:$ (solid black circles) BBC and (solid red squares) RXN. Each point represents a 10% wide centrality bin from 60%-0%.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The nuclear modification factor for MB (0%–94%).

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–10%.

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–20%.

The nuclear modification factor for 20%–40%.

The nuclear modification factor for 40%–60%.

The nuclear modification factor for 60%–94%.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.

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;).

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 4c

Figure 5a

Figure 5b

Figure 5c

Figure 7

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

Figure 8c

Figure 9a

Figure 9b

Figure 9c

Figure 10a

Figure 10b

Figure 10c

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

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

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

Lévy scale parameter $R$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The graphical representation of statistical and systematic uncertainties is the same as in Fig. 4.

Lévy index parameter $\alpha$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated similarly to Fig. 4. The horizontal line, %\aplha$ = 1.207, represents the 0%-30% centrality average value of %\aplha$.

Inverse square of the Lévy scale parameter 1/$R^2$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.

New scale parameter $\hat{R}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair, with a linear fit. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Two dimensional observed likelihood profile scan as a function of mu_ggH and mu_qqH

Distributions of $\Delta\phi$ as obtained from simulation, requiring various $\textrm{t}$ tag multiplicities for the signal in two representative combinations of (gluino, neutralino) masses with large (2.2, 0.1)$\mathrm{TeV}$ and small (1.8, 1.3)$\mathrm{TeV}$ mass difference.

Results of fits to the $n_{\textrm{b}}$ multiplicity for control regions for the muon channel and with the requirements $3\leq n_{\textrm{jet}}\leq4$, $250<L_T<350~\mathrm{GeV}$, $500<H_T<750~\mathrm{GeV}$, $n_{\textrm{W}}\geq1$, $\Delta \phi<1$. The shaded area shows the fit uncertainty of the total background.

Results of fits to the $n_{\textrm{b}}$ multiplicity for control regions for the muon channel and with the requirements $3\leq n_{\textrm{jet}}\leq4$, $350<L_T<450~\mathrm{GeV}$, $H_T>1000~\mathrm{GeV}$, $n_{\textrm{W}}\geq0$, $\Delta \phi<1$. The shaded area shows the fit uncertainty of the total background.

Jet multiplicity distribution after the single-lepton baseline selection excluding the SRs for the multi-b analysis. The simulation is normalized to data with the SF mentioned in the plot.

Jet multiplicity distribution after the single-lepton baseline selection excluding the SRs for the the zero-b analysis (right). The simulation is normalized to data with the SF mentioned in the plot.

Jet multiplicity distribution in the dilepton CRs for the multi-b analysis. The simulation is normalized to data with the SF mentioned in the plot.

Jet multiplicity distribution in the dilepton CRs for the zero-b analysis. The simulation is normalized to data with the SF mentioned in the plot.

The double ratio of the single-lepton and dilepton ratio between data and simulation together with fit results and their uncertainties is shown for the multi-b analysis. The fits are performed for each data-taking year; 2018 is shown as an example.

The double ratio of the single-lepton and dilepton ratio between data and simulation together with fit results and their uncertainties is shown for the zero-b analysis. The fits are performed for each data-taking year; 2018 is shown as an example.

The prefit $L_{\mathrm{P}}$ distribution for selected electron candidates in the baseline QCD selection, with modified requirements of $n_{\text{jet}}\in[3,4]$ and $n_{\mathrm{b}}=0$.

The prefit $L_{\mathrm{P}}$ distribution for anti-selected electron candidates in the baseline QCD selection, with modified requirements of $n_{\text{jet}}\in[3,4]$ and $n_{\mathrm{b}}=0$.

Observed event yields in the MB SRs of the multi-b analysis compared to signal and background predictions. The relative fraction of the different SM EW background contributions determined in simulation is shown by the stacked, colored histograms, normalized so that their sum is equal to the background estimated using data control regions. The QCD background is predicted using the $L_p$ method. The signal is shown for two representative combinations of (gluino, neutralino) masses with large (2.2, 0.1) $\mathrm{TeV}$ and small (1.8, 1.3) $\mathrm{TeV}$ mass differences.

Observed event yields in the MB SRs of the zero-b analysis compared to signal and background predictions. The $\textrm{W}$+jets, $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$+jets, and QCD predictions are extracted from data control samples, while the other background contributions are estimated from simulation. The signal is shown for two representative combinations of (gluino, neutralino) masses with large (2.2, 0.1) $\mathrm{TeV}$ and small (1.8, 1.3) $\mathrm{TeV}$ mass differences.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt (left) model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T1tttt model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the observed (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Cross section limits at 95% CL for the T5qqqqWW model, as functions of the gluino and LSP masses, assuming a branching fraction of 100%. The mass of the intermediate chargino is taken to be halfway between the gluino and the neutralino masses. The solid black (dashed red) lines correspond to the experved (expected) mass limits, with the thicker lines representing the central values and the thinner lines representing the $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty bands related to the theoretical (experimental) uncertainties.

Observed number of events in the MB SR bins of the multi-b analysis. All bins are defined with $\Delta\phi > 0.75$.

Observed number of events in the MB SR bins of the zero-b analysis.

The simplified likelihood can be constructed using this covariance matrix of nuisance parameters in the signal region (MB SR). The bin contents have been aggregated accross the three years to simplify the likelihood.

Selection efficiency for the multi-b signal for the SRs.

The simplified likelihood can be constructed using this covariance matrix of nuisance parameters in the signal region (MB SR). The bins were aggregated across HT to stabilize the simplified likelihood.

Selection efficiency for the zero-b signal for the SRs. The bins correspond to the aggregated bins that were used for the covariance matrix.

Inclusive cross section predictions up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured production cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ at QCD NLO accuracy from MCFM using different PDF sets

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ in 10% most central $Au$+$Au$ collisions.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{dA}$ for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2 in minimum bias $d$+$Au$.

$R_{AA}$ in the 10% most central $Au$+$Au$ collisions.

$R_{dA}$ for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2 measurement in $d$+$Au$.

$R_{dA}$ for $\pi^0$ measurement in $d$+$Au$.

Ratio of $R_{dA}$ in minimum bias $d$+$Au$ and $R_{pA}$ from neutron tagged $d$+$Au$ collisions for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2.

Ratio of $R_{dA}$ in minimum bias $d$+$Au$ and $R_{pA}$ from neutron tagged $d$+$Au$ collisions for $\pi^0$

HBT parameters of charge-combined kaon pairs, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 3.

$R_o/R_s$ of positive pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of negative pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of charge-combined kaon pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 8.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Summary of extracted parameters in the blast-wave model fit for two fitting conditions. The $T_f$ and $\rho_0$ parameters were obtained by fits to $p_T$ spectra, and the other parameters were obtained by a simultaneous fit to $v_2$ and the HBT radii.