Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.2 < |y| < 1.6.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.6 < |y| < 2.0.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.0 < |y| < 2.4.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.4 < |y| < 2.8.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.8 < |y| < 3.2.

Measured cross sections in full-lepton phase space as a function of |y|.

Normalised measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 1.6.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Events in bins of the $E_{miss}^T$ in the SR.

Di-muon mass distribution for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region for data and expected background. The expected signal distribution for $m_a = 35$ GeV is shown assuming $\sigma(t\bar{t}a)\times \text{Br}(a\rightarrow\mu\mu) = 4$ fb. Rare background processes include $ZZ+$jets, $WWZ$, $WZZ$, $ZZZ$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$.

Fit of the Double Crystal Ball width as a function of the $a$-boson mass in the $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $t\bar{t}a$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 140$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 160$ GeV.

Comparison of the expected background with data in a region dominated by non-prompt background. The region is defined exactly like the $e\mu\mu$ signal region but requiring the two selected muons to have the same electrical charge.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $\mu\mu\mu$ channel.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t\bar{t}a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ hypothesis.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+$, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $e\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+ $, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Expected lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Observed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Cutflow for two signal mass points for $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV and $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, and one signal mass point for $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for $H^+ \rightarrow W a$ with $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV, $m_{a} = 30$ GeV for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. A cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Total yields in the $e\mu\mu$ and $\mu\mu\mu$ signal regions for the expected background and data after the profile likelihood fit for a $m_a = 30$ GeV signal mass hypothesis.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for boosted.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumpition of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for boosted.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Majorana type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the electron channel for resolved.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the assumption of Dirac type in the $(m(W_{R}), m(N_{R}))$ plane in the muon channel for resolved.

The $m_{eJ}$ distribution in the boosted one electron channel.

The $m_{eeJ}$ distribution in the boosted two electron channel.

The $m_{\mu\mu J}$ distribution in the boosted two muon channel.

The $m_{jj}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $m_{jj}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

The $m_{eejj}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $m_{\mu\mu jj}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

The $h_{T}$ distribution in the resolved electron channel.

The $h_{T}$ distribution in the resolved muon channel.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR1e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for bSR2mu.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSROS2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSROS2mu.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSRSS2e.

Acceptance $\times$ efficiency for rSRSS2mu.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R}\to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to \mu\mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(N_{R})=200$ GeV. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp\to W_{R})\times B(W_{R} \to \mu \mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the special case of $m(N_{R})=200$ GeV. The theoretical cross section corresponds to either the Dirac or Majorana neutrino interpretation by ignoring the charge of the leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Majorana neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2\times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to \mu\mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Majorana neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to eeqq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Dirac neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for $\sigma(pp \to W_{R}) \times B(W_{R} \to \mu \mu qq)$ as a function of $m(W_{R})$ for the Dirac neutrino interpretations for the special case of $m(W_{R}) = 2 \times m(N_{R})$.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Particle-level TEEC results for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC results for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results

Particle-level ATEEC results for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC results for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level TEEC predictions for the tenth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the first HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the second HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the third HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the fourth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the fifth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the sixth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the seventh HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the eighth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the ninth HT2 bin

Particle-level ATEEC predictions for the tenth HT2 bin

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with MMHT 2014 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with NNPDF 3.0

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from TEEC with CT14 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with MMHT 2014 PDF

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with NNPDF 3.0

Fitted values for the strong coupling constant extracted from ATEEC with CT14 PDF

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;).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $\phi$-meson integrated nuclear modification factors $R_{AB}$ measured as a function of $N_{part}$

The comparison of $\phi$ meson (a) $v_2$ and (b) $v_2/(\epsilon N_{part}^{1/3})$ measured as a function of $p_T$ in Cu+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV and U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 193 GeVat midrapidity (|η| < 0.35)

The comparison of elliptic flow (a) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $p_T$ in $0\%–20\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (b) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T$ in $0\%–20\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (c) $v_2/n_q$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T/n_q$ in $0\%–20\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (a) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $p_T$ in $20\%–60\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (b) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T$ in $20\%–60\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (c) $v_2/n_q$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T/n_q$ in $20\%–60\%$ Cu+Au collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (a) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $p_T$ in $0\%–50\%$ U+U collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (b) $v_2$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T$ in $0\%–50\%$ U+U collisions

The comparison of elliptic flow (c) $v_2/n_q$ values measured for $\phi$ mesons as a function of $KE_T/n_q$ in $0\%–50\%$ U+U collisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invariant yield of direct photons, every 20% centrality

Invariant yield of nonprompt photons, every 20% centrality

$T_{eff}$ vs charged particle multiplicity

Integrated direct photon yield of 1-5GeV vs charged particle multiplicity

Integrated nonprompt direct photon yield of different $p_T$ integration window vs charged particle multiplicity

Scaling factor $\alpha$ vs charged particle multiplicity

Direct photon spectra for minimum bias (0-86%) Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV (a) and $39$ GeV (b). For $62.4$ GeV also centrality bins of 0-20% (c) and 20-40% (d) are shown. Data points are shown with statistical and systematic uncertainties, unless the central value is negative (arrows) or is consistent with zero within the statistical uncertainties (arrows with data point). In these cases upper limit with CL = 95$%$ are given.

Inverse slopes, $T_{eff}$ , obtained from fitting the combined data from central collisions shown in Fig. 11 is compared to the fit results of the individual data sets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV, $200$ GeV, and $2760$ GeV. Also included is the value for $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 39$ GeV obtained from fitting the min. bias data set in the lower $p_T$ range.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

The $\alpha$ values extracted using fits to integrated direct photon yields. The dashed line gives the average $\alpha$ value for the 4 lower $p_{T,min}$ points. Also shown is a model calculation for $\alpha$ discussed in the text.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2\{BF\}$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$ in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2\{BB\}$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$ in $^3$He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2\{BF\}$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$ in $^3$He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$ in $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of centrality in $p$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of centrality in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of centrality in $^3$He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $p$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $^3$He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy ratio $R=v_2\{BF\}/v_2\{BB\}$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $p$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy ratio $R=v_2\{BF\}/v_2\{BB\}$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy ratio $R=v_2\{BF\}/v_2\{BB\}$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $^3$He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Azimuthal anisotropy ratio $R=v_2\{BF\}/v_2\{BB\}$ as a function of charged particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ in $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.