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.

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ ratio vs $p_T$, p/d/3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXee

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXmumu

Exclusion limit for BrHZX_BrXll

Exclusion limit for cah

Exclusion limit for cZh

Exclusion limit for kappa

Exponent according to the Eq. 5 as a function of transverse momenta extracted from p+Au/p+Al and $^{3}$HeAu/p+Au collision systems. The uncertainties from the $N_{coll}$ calculations and from the overall normalization of p+p cancel in these ratios

Nuclear modification factors in p+Al, p+Au, d+Au, and $^{3}$He+Au in five centrality bins and for inelastic collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. The right boxes are the uncertainties of the $N_{coll}$ collisions from the Glauber model, while the left box represents the overall normalization uncertainty from p+p collisions

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

$R_{xA}$ for inelastic collisions compared to three different nuclear PDF calculations and their uncertainties. The data points include the statistical and systematical uncertainties. Relevant data has been tabulated in Figure 7.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant in panel (a) is tabulated here.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ in panel (a) is tabulated here.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Panel(b) and panel(c) are tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. integrated yield is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. integrated yield is tabulated here.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* RH hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* VL hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+b hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+t hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

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.

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