Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 14.

Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 15.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 16.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 17.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 18.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 19.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 20.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 1.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 2.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 3.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 4.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 5.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 6.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 7.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 8.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 9.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 10.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M7 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient. The limits on M7 were obtained without taking into account the SM-EFT interference for the EW W$^\pm$Zjj final state.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S02 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T2 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5) \times \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5 \rightarrow W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin\theta_{\mathrm{H}}$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass in the Georgi-Machacek model.

Fully corrected assorted $\pi^{0}$-hadron conditional pair distributions for $d$+Au collisions centrality 0-88% and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^0$s are within 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$ and are correlated with hadrons with $p_{T,assoc}$ of 1.5-2 GeV/$c$, 2-3GeV/$c$, 3-4 GeV/$c$, and 4-5 GeV/$c$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron azimuthal correlations from minimumbias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (4−6 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of $N_{coll}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (1–2.5 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of centrality for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (2–3 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Near-side and far-side $p_{out}$ distributions for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions obtained from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation. The trigger is 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$, the associated particle is 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5.0 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlations for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions. The trigger pions are 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 6 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlation for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for several different trigger $p_T$s for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

The comparison of the $p_{out}$ distribution at the near-side and far-side between central $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. Results are obtained for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations with the associated hadron range 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and trigger pion range of 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $x_E$ distribution from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation at the near-side and far-side between minimum bias $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^{\pm}$ are from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The fitted fractional change in $dN/d_{x_E}$ per unit $p_{T,trig}$ of the far-side conditional yield for different ranges of $x_E$.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for charged pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for neutral pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-0.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-2.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-0 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-2 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $2b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $3b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $4b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-0 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-2 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The theoretical prediction for the bulk RS model with $k/\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}} = 1$ (solid red line) is shown; the decrease below 350 GeV is due to a sharp reduction in the $G^{*}_{\text{KK}} \rightarrow HH$ branching ratio. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

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.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood exptected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The observed (filled circles) and expected (hollow circles) 95% CL upper limits on the $HH$ ggF production cross-section in the Standard Model and for seven HEFT benchmark points. The teal and yellow colored bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations on the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties. The predicted cross-sections of each of the models under consideration are shown by the red crosses. The contribution from VBF production to the total $HH$ production cross-section is neglected.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{\lambda}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{2V}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

Expected yields of the signal $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ after applying the analysis preselection and in each analysis category after the final selection. The $HH$ yield is obtained considering both the $ggF$ and $VBF$ contributions. The other coupling modifiers affecting $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 3 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 4 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 3 region.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Summary of the expected (blue) and observed (orange) one-dimensional constraints at 68% (solid error bars) and 95% (dashed error bars) CL on the coefficients of selected HEFT (top) and SMEFT (bottom) operators describing Higgs boson interactions affecting $HH$ production through gluon--gluon fusion. The results are obtained from one dimensional scans of the profile log-likelihood assuming that all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The contribution from VBF $HH$ production is neglected.

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.