The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 0-10% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 10-20% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 20-30% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 30-40% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 40-50% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 50-60% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The $H$ parameter that characterize the magnitude of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The $\sigma$ parameter that characterize the width of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $A$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $B$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $\widehat{A}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $\widehat{B}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The centrality dependence of $\alpha_0$, the $m_T$-averaged value of $\alpha$ as a function of $N_{part}$.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.326$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.438$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.553$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.670$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.787$ GeV.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

The best values of $B^{-1}_{\eta\prime}$ spectrum of the $\eta\prime$ condensate in the six centrality classes.

The centrality dependence of the best values of the in-medium mass of the $m^{*}_{\eta\prime}$.

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 0-10% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 10-20% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 20-30% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 30-40% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 40-50% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 50-60% (see Fig. 11).

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 0%-20% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side a function of Deltaphi 20%-40% collisions. Systematic uncertainties for background subtraction and global scale uncertainties are given.

Differential away-side $\Delta_{AA}$ for ${\pi/2<\Delta\phi<\pi}$

Differential away-side $\Delta_{AA}$ for ${\pi/2<\Delta\phi<\pi}$

Differential away-side $\Delta_{AA}$ for ${\pi/2<\Delta\phi<\pi}$

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.

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.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the signal region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron and WIMP-proton scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with axial-vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Observed and expected exclusions at $95\%$ CL on the Horndeski dark-energy model for $m_{\phi}=0.1$ GeV and $c_{i\neq 2}=0$, $c_{2}=1$, expressed in terms of the visible cross section as a function of the suppression scale $M_{2}$.

$95\%$ CL observed and expected lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions $n$, considering nominal LO signal cross sections.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the coupling $c_{\stackrel{\sim}{\smash{G}}}$ as a function of the effective scale $f_a$ for ALP mass of 1 MeV. The bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ theory uncertainties in the observed limit and the $\pm 1\sigma$and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of the expected limit in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL limits are computed with no suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > f_a^2$.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Inferred 95% CL limits on the WIMP annihilation rate as a function of WIMP mass, for the pseudoscalar mediator model. The annihilation rate is defined as the product of cross section $\sigma$ and relative velocity $v_{rel}$, averaged over the DM velocity distribution ($\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle$). Both the $qq$ and $gg$ annihilation channels are considered in the calculation of the annihilation rate

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_A}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_P}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Contribution to the total SR background uncertainty in exclusive bins of the SR, as obtained from the CR-only fit. In the table, the contribution of each source of systematic is shown as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions represented by the corresponding nuisance parameters.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM12.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM12.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 150 GeV is applied.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 350 GeV is applied.

Integrated away-side $\gamma_{dir}$-h per-trigger $I_{AA}$ and $I_{dA}$ of Au+Au, d+Au, and p+p, as a function of $\xi$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

Ratios of $I_{AA}$ as a function of direct photon $p_T$ for three different away-side integration ranges.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane $\phi^a - \psi_2$ integrated over the near side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane $\phi^a - \psi_2$ integrated over the away side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane for near-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$ and for away-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane for near-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$ and for away-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Per-trigger yields $Y(\Delta\phi)$ of dihadrons pairs measured in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200~{\rm GeV}$ after subtracting the underlying event model with several $p_T$ selections. Systematic uncertainties due to track matching are given.

Per-trigger yields $Y(\Delta\phi)$ of dihadrons pairs measured in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200~{\rm GeV}$ after subtracting the underlying event model with several $p_T$ selections. Systematic uncertainties due to track matching are given.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $Y(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.