Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

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

Two graphs show the results of the scan over the horizontal and vertical displacements of the antiproton beam (see Table 3, before) and the horizontal and vertical angles (on the right). The color represents the intensity of the signal obtained on the MCP from the annihilations of the trapped antiprotons. The parameter space has been organized in this way, assuming that displacements and angles have independent effects, not for physics reasons, but because scanning over the full parameter space would have been impossible time-wise (10 steps per dimension 4 dimensions x 5 min of duration of the script ~35 days!).

Results of the beam steering optimization. Convergence plot of the highest observed number of annihilation events.

Results of the beam steering optimization. Density plots of the evaluations in the four-parameter space dimensions.

Results of the beam steering optimization. Density plots of the evaluations in the four-parameter space dimensions.

Results of the beam steering optimization. Density plots of the evaluations in the four-parameter space dimensions.

Results of the beam steering optimization. Density plots of the evaluations in the four-parameter space dimensions.

Results of the trap closing time optimization. Convergence plot of the highest observed number of annihilation events.

Results of the trap closing time optimization. Number of observed annihilation events as a function of the trap closing time. The result is different from the one in 2022 (Figure 6) because the capture electrode voltage was raised from 10 to 15 kV.

Synchronization results in the asynchronous parallel operation mode, showing the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts, in a schedule of 50 scripts. Both plots are accompanied by a single point plot adjacent on the right, representing the average δT over all 50 runs. In the same-duration script case (a), the high average can be explained by intrinsic delays included in Tamer and Monkey to avoid race conditions. In the different-duration script case (b), a linear trend is visible that comes from the increase in the duration time between different Kaslis. The bottom plot shows δT corrected for the linear trend, showing the average jitter value of -5 to 5 s.

Synchronization results in the asynchronous parallel operation mode, showing the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts, in a schedule of 50 scripts. Both plots are accompanied by a single point plot adjacent on the right, representing the average δT over all 50 runs. In the same-duration script case (a), the high average can be explained by intrinsic delays included in Tamer and Monkey to avoid race conditions. In the different-duration script case (b), a linear trend is visible that comes from the increase in the duration time between different Kaslis. The bottom plot shows δT corrected for the linear trend, showing the average jitter value of -5 to 5 s.

Synchronization results in the asynchronous parallel operation mode, showing the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts, in a schedule of 50 scripts. Both plots are accompanied by a single point plot adjacent on the right, representing the average δT over all 50 runs. In the same-duration script case (a), the high average can be explained by intrinsic delays included in Tamer and Monkey to avoid race conditions. In the different-duration script case (b), a linear trend is visible that comes from the increase in the duration time between different Kaslis. The bottom plot shows δT corrected for the linear trend, showing the average jitter value of -5 to 5 s.

Synchronization results in the synchronous parallel operation mode, showing the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts, in a schedule of 50 scripts. Both in the same-duration case (a) and in the different-duration case (b), the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts is stable around 5 ms, independently of the duration of the scripts. Both plots are accompanied by a single point plot adjacent on the right, representing the average δT over all 50 runs.

Synchronization results in the synchronous parallel operation mode, showing the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts, in a schedule of 50 scripts. Both in the same-duration case (a) and in the different-duration case (b), the time difference between the start of different parallel scripts is stable around 5 ms, independently of the duration of the scripts. Both plots are accompanied by a single point plot adjacent on the right, representing the average δT over all 50 runs.

'200 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 40-60%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 60-80%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'200 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'$0.4 < M_{ee} < 0.76 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 40-60%'

'$0.4 < M_{ee} < 0.76 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 60-80%'

'$0.4 < M_{ee} < 0.76 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 80-100%'

'$0.76 < M_{ee} < 1.2 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 40-60%'

'$0.76 < M_{ee} < 1.2 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 60-80%'

'$0.76 < M_{ee} < 1.2 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 80-100%'

'$1.2 < M_{ee} < 2.6 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 40-60%'

'$1.2 < M_{ee} < 2.6 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 60-80%'

'$1.2 < M_{ee} < 2.6 GeV/c^{2}$, Centrality: 80-100%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 40-60%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 60-80%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'200 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'Centrality: 40-60%'

'Centrality: 60-80%'

'Centrality: 80-100%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 40-60%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 60-80%'

'54.4 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'200 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'$-2<cos(4\Delta\phi)>$ as a function of $p_{T}$ @ 200 GeV, Centrality: 80-100%'

'$-2<cos(4\Delta\phi)>$ as a function of $p_{T}$ @ 200 GeV, UPC'

Mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ for $\Lambda$ and $K^{0}_{S}$ at mid-rapidity as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ at 3 GeV.

Hadron 4$\pi$ yields per mean number of participants yield as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$.

Mid-rapidity yield ratios of $\Lambda/p$, $\Xi/\Lambda$, and $K^0_{S}/\Lambda$ at 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

Hadron mass dependence of mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow as a function of (pseudorapidity-y_beam) for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 19.6 GeV for 0-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of (pseudorapidity-y_beam) for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 27 GeV for 0-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of pseudorapidity for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 19.6 GeV for 10-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of pseudorapidity for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 27 GeV for 10-40% centrality.

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 7

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 10

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 14

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 6

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 7

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 9

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 18

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 4

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 2

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 18

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 9

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 1

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 8

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 5

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 17

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 5

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 8

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 12

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 11

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 15

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 3

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 13

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 16

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 3

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 20

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 4

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 14

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 12

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 13

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 11

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 20

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 17

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 15

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 6

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 2

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 10

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 16

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$) parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$) parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Summary of the expected (blue) and observed (orange) one-dimensional constraints at 68% (solid error bars) and 95% (dashed error bars) CL on the coefficients of selected HEFT (top) and SMEFT (bottom) operators describing Higgs boson interactions affecting $HH$ production through gluon-gluon fusion. The results are obtained from one dimensional scans of the profile log-likelihood assuming that all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The contribution from VBF $HH$ production is neglected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 0-5% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 20-30% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 40-50% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ with $0.2 < p_{\rm T}^{\rm t} < 0.6$ GeV/$c$ in different centrality intervals

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 0-5% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 20-30% centrality

The factorization ratio $r_{3}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm a}$ for different $p_{\rm T}^{\rm t}$ intervals in 40-50% centrality

The flow angle fluctuation $A_{\rm 2}^{\rm f}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

The flow magnitude fluctuation $M_{\rm 2}^{\rm f}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

Lower limit of flow angle fluctuations as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals

Upper limit of flow magnitude fluctuations as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals