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.).

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^β=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% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) 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 σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) 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 σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) 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 σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) 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 σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) 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_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01 and m_χ=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_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)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.

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.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV in multiplicity interval 20--40\%. The uncertainty 'sys,$p_{\rm T}$-correlated' indicates the systematic uncertainty after removing the contributions of $p_{\rm T}$-uncorrelated uncertainty.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV in multiplicity interval 40--60\%. The uncertainty 'sys,$p_{\rm T}$-correlated' indicates the systematic uncertainty after removing the contributions of $p_{\rm T}$-uncorrelated uncertainty.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV in multiplicity interval 60--100\%. The uncertainty 'sys,$p_{\rm T}$-correlated' indicates the systematic uncertainty after removing the contributions of $p_{\rm T}$-uncorrelated uncertainty.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to charged $\pi$ ($\pi^{+} + \pi^{-}$) at midrapidity as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 7 TeV.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to charged $\pi$ ($\pi^{+} + \pi^{-}$) as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV. The uncertainty 'sys,uncorrelated' indicates the multiplicity uncorrelated systematic uncertainty.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to K$^{-}$ at midrapidity as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 7 TeV.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to K$^{-}$ as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV. The uncertainty 'sys,uncorrelated' indicates the multiplicity uncorrelated systematic uncertainty.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to its ground state particle $\Lambda$ ($\Lambda + \bar{\Lambda}$) at midrapidity as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 7 TeV.

Ratio of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields of $\Lambda$(1520) (sum of particle and anti-particle states) to its ground state particle $\Lambda$ ($\Lambda + \bar{\Lambda}$) as a function of $\langle {\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm d} \eta_{\rm lab} \rangle$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ $\mathrm{=}$ 5.02 TeV. The uncertainty 'sys,uncorrelated' indicates the multiplicity uncorrelated systematic uncertainty.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for NSD collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.0 to 2.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -2.4 to 2.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.0 to 3.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 3.4 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Multiplicity distribution in the pseudorapidity region -3.4 to 5.0 for INEL>0 collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in NSD collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.0 to 2.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -2.4 to 2.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.0 to 3.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 3.4 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Set of fit parameters for the multiplicity distribution in pseudorapidity range -3.4 to 5.0 in INEL>0 collisions at center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 1.96 TeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 900 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle multiplicity for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMAX region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransMIN region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransAVE region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Average charged particle pT sum for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV and |eta| < 0.8 in the TransDIF region as defined by the leading charged particle, as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading charged-particle pTmax, at 300 GeV.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for $K\pi$ hadron pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the hadron ($K$ or $\pi$) in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second hadron ($K$ or $\pi$) are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{2}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{2})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF0 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $K\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $K\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for pion pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the pion in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second pion are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{th}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{th})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF12 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $\pi\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $\pi\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for pion pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the pion in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second pion are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{2}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{2})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF0 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $\pi\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $\pi\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

Two-dimensional $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$ correlation functions for non-pion triggers from 0-10% most-central Au+Au data at 200 GeV. All trigger and associated charged hadrons are selected in the respective pT ranges 4 < $p_T^{trig}$ < 5 GeV/c and 1.5 < $p_T^{assoc}$ < 4 GeV/c.

Two-dimensional $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$ correlation functions for pion triggers from minimum-bias d+Au data at 200 GeV. All trigger and associated charged hadrons are selected in the respective pT ranges 4 < $p_T^{trig}$ < 5 GeV/c and 1.5 < $p_T^{assoc}$ < 4 GeV/c.

Two-dimensional $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$ correlation functions for pion triggers from 0-10% most-central Au+Au data at 200 GeV. All trigger and associated charged hadrons are selected in the respective pT ranges 4 < $p_T^{trig}$ < 5 GeV/c and 1.5 < $p_T^{assoc}$ < 4 GeV/c.

The $\Delta\phi$ projections of the pure-cone correlations for |$\Delta\phi$| < $\pi$/4 for pion triggers.

The $\Delta\eta$ projections of the pure-cone correlations for |$\Delta\eta$| < 0.78 for pion triggers.

The $\Delta\phi$ projections of the pure-cone correlations for |$\Delta\phi$| < $\pi$/4 non-pion triggers.

The $\Delta\eta$ projections of the pure-cone correlations for |$\Delta\eta$| < 0.78 non-pion triggers.

$\Delta\phi$ projections over |$\Delta\eta$| < 1.5 in 0-10% Au+Au and minimum-bias d+Au data at 200 GeV after subtracting the jet-like fit components.

Extracted Fourier coefficients from fitting in $\pi$ 2 < $\Delta\phi$ < 3$\pi/2$ ) x (|$\Delta\eta$| < 1.5) (1.52 for d+Au), for pion, non-pion, and charged hadron triggers in the flow-based model.

Extracted Fourier coefficients from fitting in $\pi$ 2 < $\Delta\phi$ < 3$\pi/2$ ) x (|$\Delta\eta$| < 1.5) (1.52 for d+Au), for pion, non-pion, and charged hadron triggers in the flow-based model.

V3/V2 ratio for pion and non-pion triggers in Au+Au, and the extrapolated value for "pure protons".

The $V_2${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_2${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_2${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_2${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_3${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_3${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_3${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_3${2} and difference between the pairs at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$). The data are from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $V_2^{1/2}$ difference between quadruplets at ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\beta}$, $\eta_{\beta}$) and ($\eta_{\alpha}$, $\eta_{\alpha}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$, -$\eta_{\beta}$).

The two-particle cumulants, V2{2} as a function of $\eta$ for one particle while averaged over $\eta$ of the partner particle.

The two-particle cumulants, V2{2} as a function of $\eta$.

The two-particle cumulants, V2{2} as a function of $\eta$ for one particle while averaged over $\eta$ of the partner particle.

The difference in two-particle cumulants, V2{2} as a function of $\eta$ for one particle while averaged over $\eta$ of the partner particle.

No description provided.

V3{2} as a function of $\eta$.

<$V_3^2$> as a function of $\eta$.

The $\Delta\eta$-dependent component of the two-particle cumulant with $\Delta\eta$-gap, $D^-$ in Eq. (11), of the second harmonic is shown as a function of ??-gap |$\Delta\eta$| > x.

The $\Delta\eta$-dependent component of the two-particle cumulant with $\Delta\eta$-gap, $D^-$ in Eq. (11), of the third harmonic is shown as a function of ??-gap |$\Delta\eta$| > x.

The nonflow, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_2}$, $\sqrt{\delta_2}$, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_3}$ and flow, $\sqrt{v_2^2/2}$, $\sqrt{<v_2^2>}$ results are shown as a function of centrality percentile for the second harmonic.

The nonflow, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_2}$, $\sqrt{\delta_2}$, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_3}$ and flow, $\sqrt{v_2^2/2}$, $\sqrt{<v_2^2>}$ results are shown as a function of centrality percentile for the second harmonic.

The nonflow, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_2}$, $\sqrt{\delta_2}$, $sqrt{\bar{D}_3}$ and flow, $\sqrt{v_2^2/2}$, $\sqrt{<v_2^2>}$ results are shown as a function of centrality percentile for the second harmonic.

The nonflow, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_2}$, $\sqrt{\delta_2}$, $sqrt{\bar{D}_3}$ and flow, $\sqrt{v_2^2/2}$, $\sqrt{<v_2^2>}$ results are shown as a function of centrality percentile for the third harmonic.

The nonflow, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_2}$, $sqrt{\delta_2}$, $\sqrt{\bar{D}_3}$ and flow, $\sqrt{v_2^2/2}$, $\sqrt{<v_2^2>}$ results are shown as a function of centrality percentile for the third harmonic.

The relative elliptic flow fluctuation $\sigma_2/<v_2>$ centrality dependence in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.