$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra supplemental to figure 3a from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3b from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3b from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3c from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3c from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3d from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3d from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra supplemental to figure 3e from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3f from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3f from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3g from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3g from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3h from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3h from 40-60% semi-peripheral Au+Cu collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 40-60% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio supplemental to figure 4 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5a from 0-10% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5b from 10-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5c from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5a from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5d from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5b from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5e from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5c from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5f from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5f from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 5 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 5 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6a from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6b from 0-10% central Cu+Cu collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6b from 40-50% semi-central Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Cu+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>10$ GeV/$c$ in Cu+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>10$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

J/psi invariant yield in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 20-40, 40-60 and 60-92% centrality classes at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification $R_{AA}$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 0-20% centrality class at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification $R_{AA}$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 20-40, 40-60 and 60-92% centrality classes at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

The invariant yield versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in 0-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The results are compared to high-$p_T$ (3 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results from STAR [9] (solid squares) and PHENIX data [8] (open squares). Also shown is the yield in 0-60% centrality Cu+Cu collisions for low $p_T$ (solid triangles) and high $p_T$ [48] (open triangles). The models are described in the text [49, 50]. The $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions is also shown at STAR (stars) and PHENIX [51] (diamonds), and the scale is indicated on the right axis.

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-20% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 20-40% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 40-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality for |y| < 1 in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield $Bd^2N/(2\pi p_Tdydp_T) [(GeV/c)^{-2}]$ and nuclear modification factor as a function of transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The ratio of like-sign to mixed-event distributions in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the unlike-sign pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the like-sign pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the mix-event pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the unlike-sign pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the like-sign pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the mix-event pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The di-electron continuum after background subtraction with mixed-event method without efficiency correction in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The di-electron continuum after background subtraction with like-sign method without efficiency correction in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The signal over background ratio, plotted as a function of Mee for NSD p + p collisions.

The comparison of the di-electron continuum between data and simulation after efficiency correction within the STAR acceptance in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

Data over cocktail ratio after efficiency correction within the STAR acceptance in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

The ω → $e^+ e^-$ invariant yield, divided by its B.R. in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{1}$ within $-0.4<y<-0.1$ for $t$ in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity and $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{1}$ for $^{3}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{1}$ within $-0.1<y<0$ for $^4$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{1}$ within $-0.4<y<-0.1$ for $^{4}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity and $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ for $p$ in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity and $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ for $d$ in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ within $-0.1<y<0$ for $t$ in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ within $-0.4<y<-0.1$ for $t$ in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity and $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ for $^{3}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ within $-0.1<y<0$ for $^4$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The $p_{T}$ dependencies of $v_{2}$ within $-0.4<y<-0.1$ for $^{4}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{1}$ for $p$, $d$, and $^{3}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{1}$ for $t$ and $^{4}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{1}$ from JAM plus coalescence calculations in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{2}$ for $p$, $d$, and $^{3}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{2}$ for $t$ and $^{4}$He in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

The rapidity dependencies of $v_{2}$ from JAM plus coalescence calculations in 10-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

Light nucleus scaled $v_{1}$ slopes as a function os collision energy in 10-40 mid-cantral Au+Au collisions.

Light nucleus scaled $v_{1}$ slopes from JAM plus coalescence in 10-40 mid-cantral Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV.

Data from Figure 3b on charged pion production. Data correspond to charged particle production, corrected to the contribution from (PI+ + PI-)/2.

Data from Figure 3b on charged pion production. Data correspond to charged particle production, corrected to the contribution from (PI+ + PI-)/2.

Data from Figure 3c on charged pion production. Data correspond to charged particle production, corrected to the contribution from (PI+ + PI-)/2.

Data from Figure 3d on charged pion production. Data correspond to charged particle production, corrected to the contribution from (PI+ + PI-)/2.

Data from Figure 4a on forward jet production differential in x, low PT

Data from Figure 4a on forward jet production differential in x, high PT

Data from Figure 5a on forward jet production differential in delta(phi), low x

Data from Figure 5b on forward jet production differential in delta(phi), high x

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ and $v_3$ via the two-particle correlation method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_4$ via the two-particle correlation method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ and $v_3$ via the two-particle correlation method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_4$ via the two-particle correlation method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 0%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 0%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 30%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 0%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 30%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 0%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 30%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Freeze-out temperature $T_f$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Radially averaged flow rapidity $<\rho>$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Radial flow rapidity anisotropy $\rho_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Radial flow rapidity anisotropy $\rho_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_3$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Radial flow rapidity anisotropy $\rho_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_4$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Radial flow rapidity anisotropy $\rho_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_4\{\Psi_2\}$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Spatial anisotropy $s_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Spatial anisotropy $s_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_3$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Spatial anisotropy $s_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_4$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Spatial anisotropy $s_n$ in the blast-wave model fit to azimuthal anisotropy $v_4\{\Psi_2\}$ and invariant yields in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 10%–20% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 20%–30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 30%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 40%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$ in 50%–60% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 10%–20% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 20%–30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 30%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 40%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $K^{\pm}$ in 50%–60% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 10%–20% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 20%–30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 30%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 40%–50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_n$ via the event-plane method for charge-combined $p\bar{p}$ in 50%–60% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Dijet signal efficiencies as a function of the signal mass and lifetime for events satisfying all event and vertex requirements, with corrections based on systematic differences in the vertex reconstruction efficiency between data and simulation.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ for $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data and three simulated multijet signal samples each with a mass of 1600 GeV. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for the samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The last bin includes the overflow events. This bin includes one event in data with a vertex with large $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ that appears to arise from tracks originating from separate pp interaction vertices, consistent with background.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 3-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data with two 4-track vertices. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Distribution of the $x$-$y$ distances between vertices, $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution $d_{\mathrm{VV}}^{\kern 0.15em\mathrm{C}}$ (blue continuous line) is constructed from one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using $\geq$5-track one-vertex event information. The two vertical red dashed lines separate the regions used in the fit.

Predicted yields for the background-only normalized template, predicted yields for three simulated multijet signals each with a mass of 1600 GeV, and the observed yield in each $d_{\mathrm{VV}}$ bin. The production cross section for each signal model is assumed to be the lower limit excluded by CMS-EXO-17-018, corresponding to values of 0.8, 0.25, and 0.15 fb for samples with $c\tau =$ 0.3, 1.0, and 10 mm, respectively. The uncertainties in the signal yields and the systematic uncertainties in the background prediction reflect the systematic uncertainties given in the text.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the multijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the neutralino (red) and gluino (purple) with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared for the dijet signals, as a function of mass and $c\tau$. The overlaid mass-lifetime exclusion curves assume pair-production cross sections for the top squark with 100% branching fraction to each model's respective decay mode specified. The solid black (dashed colored) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits at 95% CL. The thin black lines represent the variation of the observed limit within theoretical uncertainties of the signal cross section. The thin dashed colored lines represent the region containing 68% of the expected limit distribution under the background-only hypothesis. The observed limits from the CMS displaced jets search (CMS-EXO-19-021) are also shown in teal for comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 300um in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 1 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for multijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of mass for dijet signals, for a fixed $c\tau$ of 10 mm in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 800 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 1600 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for multijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The neutralino and gluino pair production cross sections are shown for the multijet signals. For $m$ = 2400 GeV, the expected neutralino cross section is $\approx 8\times 10^{-5}$ fb and is not shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction squared, as a function of $c\tau$ for dijet signals, for a fixed mass of 2400 GeV in the full Run-2 data set. The top squark pair-production cross section is shown for the dijet signals.

Data-to-simulation efficiency correction factors, shown for multijet and dijet signal topologies in several ranges of $c\tau$. Note that these correction factors account for the two long-lived particles in the simulated events, and are therefore the total correction factors used to scale event yields rather than the correction factors one would apply to individual vertices.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 3-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track and 3-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of two-vertex events in data which have exactly one 4-track vertex and one 3-track vertex.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from 4-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized to the number of 4-track two-vertex events in data.

Distribution of the azimuthal angle between vertices, $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{VV}}$, for 2017 and 2018 data. The background distribution (blue continuous line) is constructed from $\geq$5-track one-vertex events in data, and is normalized using one-vertex event information. No $\geq$5-track two-vertex data events pass the selection.

Direct photon spectra(Nucl. Part. Phys. 23, A1 (1997)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in p+p at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 63 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51, 836 (1990)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in p+p at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 63 GeV.

Direct photon spectra normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 62.4 GeV.

Direct photon spectra normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 39.0 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review C91, 064904 (2015)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review Letters 104, 132301 (2010)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review Letters 109, 152302 (2012)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review C98, 054902 (2018)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physics Letters B754 235 (2016)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 2760 GeV.

Number of binary collisions N_{coll} vs. Charged particle multiplicity in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Number of binary collisions N_{coll} vs. centrality in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. Charged particle multiplicity in various systems at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. Charged particle multiplicity in various systems at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.