Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.

The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.

HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.

HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included an implicit requirement of cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for -4.5 < $\Delta\eta$ < -2 in d+Au collisions, for high ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for 2 < $\Delta\eta$ < 4.5 in d+Au collisions, for low ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for 2 < $\Delta\eta$ < 4.5 in d+Au collisions, for high ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the near-side (|$\Delta\phi$| < $\pi/3$) correlated yield. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the away-side (|$\Delta\phi - \pi$| < $\pi/3$) correlated yield. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the ratio of the near- to away-side correlated yields in d+Au collisions. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the second harmonic Fourier coefficient, V2, in low ZDC-Au activity d+Au collisions.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the second harmonic Fourier coefficient, V2, in high ZDC-Au activity d+Au collisions.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selections is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

The acceptance-corrected excess dielectron mass spectra, normalized to the charged particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity dNch/dy, in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV. The dNch/dy values in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV are from Ref. [38]. The normalization uncertainty from the STAR measured dN/dy is about 10%, which is not shown in the table.

The acceptance-corrected excess dielectron mass spectra, normalized to the charged particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity dNch/dy, in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dNch/dy values in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV are from Ref. [39]. The normalization uncertainty from the STAR measured dN/dy is about 10%, which is not shown in the table.

Integrated yields of the normalized dilepton excesses for 0.4 < $M^{ll}$ < 0.75 GeV/c$^2$ as a function of dNch/dy. From top to bottom: 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, then 0-10%, 10-40%, 40-80% and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

Differential inclusive cross J/PSI section for the |rapidity| range 1.6 to 2.4 for each prompt J/PSI polarization scenario considered.

Measured fractions of J/PSI mesons from B hadrons corrected for the prompt and non-prompt acceptances.

Measured fractions of J/PSI mesons from B hadrons corrected for the prompt and non-prompt acceptances.

Measured fractions of J/PSI mesons from B hadrons corrected for the prompt and non-prompt acceptances.

Differential prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 0 to 1.2 for each prompt J/PSI polarization scenario considered.

Differential prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 1.2 to 1.6 for each prompt J/PSI polarization scenario considered.

Differential prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 1.6 to 2.4 for each prompt J/PSI polarization scenario considered.

Differential non-prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 0 to 1.2.

Differential non-prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 1.2 to 1.6.

Differential non-prompt J/PSI cross section for the |rapidity| range 1.6 to 2.4.

Invariant cross section of electrons from charm decay versus PT These values has been obtained using g3data software which to extract the data from the plot and should therefore be used with caution. The values in the last column indicate the level of uncertainty intoduced by g3data.

Invariant cross section of electrons from bottom decay versus PT These values has been obtained using g3data software which to extract the data from the plot and should therefore be used with caution. The values in the last column indicate the level of uncertainty intoduced by g3data.

Total bottom cross section To obtain the total bottom cross section, the differential charm cross section has been extrapolated to the whole rapidity range, using a HVQMNR rapidity distribution with aCTEQ5M PDF.