$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, and protons using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $K^+$, and $K^-$ using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $K^+$, and $K^-$ using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from a symmetric acceptance across midrapidity in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Protons exhibit an increasingly negative slope as the centrality increases.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from a symmetric acceptance across midrapidity in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Protons exhibit an increasingly negative slope as the centrality increases.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from only the backward region in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Note that the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ acceptance extends to a lower limit than in Fig. 6.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from only the backward region in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Note that the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ acceptance extends to a lower limit than in Fig. 6.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for protons in three large centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. $v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ becomes increasingly negative as $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality increase.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for protons in three large centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. $v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ becomes increasingly negative as $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality increase.

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 30-40% centrality

1D $\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 70-80% centrality

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ PbPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in PbPb for relative $<|\Delta\phi|>/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb for relative $|\Delta\phi|/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 0-40 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 120-150 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 270-300 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $p_{T}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

The total coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$, measured in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ values used correspond to the center of each rapidity range. The theoretical uncertainties is due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.

The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.

The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.

The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The photon flux values from STARLight as a function of rapidity, in different neutron multiplicity classes: 0n0n, 0nXn, and XnXn.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0n0n neutron multiplicity class.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0nXn neutron multiplicity class.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the XnXn neutron multiplicity class.

The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.

This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.

Centrality dependence of (a) $v_2${2} and (b) $v_2${4}. (a) The red points indicate no pseudorapidity gap whereas the magenta points indicate a pseudorapidity gap of |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0. (b) The black points indicate $v_2${4} with no pseudorapidity gap, the blue points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 but where some short-range pairs are allowed, and the red points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 where no short-range pairs are allowed.

Centrality dependence of (a) $v_2${2} and (b) $v_2${4}. (a) The red points indicate no pseudorapidity gap whereas the magenta points indicate a pseudorapidity gap of |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0. (b) The black points indicate $v_2${4} with no pseudorapidity gap, the blue points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 but where some short-range pairs are allowed, and the red points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 where no short-range pairs are allowed.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Cumulant method estimate of $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2} \rangle$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are shown as black open squares. The same calculation as done in data is done in ampt, shown as a solid green line. Calculations of $\sigma_{\epsilon_{2}}$ /$ \langle\epsilon_{2}\rangle$ performed in the Monte Carlo Glauber model are shown as blue lines. The solid blue line is the Monte Carlo Glauber calculation done using the same estimate as the data, the dashed blue line is the direct calculation of the moments of the MC Glauber $\epsilon_{2}$ distribution.

Centrality dependence of $v_3${2, |$\Delta\eta$| > 2} in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, shown as magenta diamonds. The systematic uncertainty is indicated as a shaded magenta band. Also shown as black squares are $\sqrt{\langle v^{2}_{3}\rangle}$ as determined from the folding analysis, which is shown in the next section.

Centrality dependence of $v_3${2, |$\Delta\eta$| > 2} in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, shown as magenta diamonds. The systematic uncertainty is indicated as a shaded magenta band. Also shown as black squares are $\sqrt{\langle v^{2}_{3}\rangle}$ as determined from the folding analysis, which is shown in the next section.

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ and $v_2$/($\epsilon * N^{1/3}_{part} * n_q$) vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV. The values of $v_2$ and $p_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 14, and the values of $v_2$, $n_q$, and $KE_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 18.

Net-proton cumulant ratios C4/C2, C5/C1, C6/C2 (0-40$\%$ and 50-60$\%$ centrality) and C3/C1 (0-40$\%$ centrality) in Au+Au collisions from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 - 200 GeV. At $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV, measurement is done for protons instead of net-protons, and with halfrapdity coverage (-0.5 $<$ y $<$ 0) while for rest of energies the rapidity coverage is (-0.5 $<$ y $<$ -0.5).

Net-proton cumulant ratios C4/C2, C5/C1, C6/C2 (0-40$\%$ and 50-60$\%$ centrality) and C3/C1 (0-40$\%$ centrality) from UrQMD model in Au+Au collisions from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 -200 GeV. At $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV, UrQMD calculation is done for protons instead of net-protons, and with halfrapdity coverage (-0.5 $<$ y $<$ 0) while for rest of energies the rapidity coverage is (-0.5 $<$ y $<$ -0.5).

Fifth-to-first (KS5/KS1) and sixth-to-second (KS6/KS2) order K-statistic ratios of net-proton distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV for 0-40$\%$ and 50-60$\%$ centrality.

Net-proton cumulant ratio C6/C2 and corresponding K-statistic ratio (0-40$\%$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of sample size. Uncertainties are only statistical.

Cumulant ratios C4/C2, C5/C1, C6/C2 and C3/C1 of net-proton distributions measured with half rapdity coverage (-0.5 $<$ y $<$ 0) in 0-40$\%$ central Au+Au collisions for collider energies from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 - 54.4 GeV.

Cumulant ratios C5/C1 of net-proton distributions measured in 40-50$\%$, 60-70$\%$, and 70-80$\%$ Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. This is supplemental data and was not part of the original paper.

SM background observation/prediction in the WH signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the W signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the W signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the H signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the H signal region

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a Z boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a H boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for mass-degenerate higgsino-like$\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ as functions of the NLSP and LSP masses.

Efficiency of bb-tagger for H(bb), Z(bb) and Z(cc) decays.

Efficiency of W- and V-tagger for W(qq) and Z(qq) decays.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the HSR region.

Covariance matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.

Correlation matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.