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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* RH hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* VL hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+b hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+t hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $0.5<|\eta|<1$.

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $|\eta|<0.5$.

Parton dijet invariant mass $M_{inv}$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology.

Parton dijet invariant mass $M_{inv}$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology.

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$, $x_T$, and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $|\eta|<1$.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region and jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology and the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

The particle-level di-jet differential cross section. The systematic uncertainty on the data contains contributions from track finding efficiency, track transverse momentum resolution, calorimeter energy resolution, and unfolding uncertainties. For the theory, values are given for the underlying event and hadronization (UEH) correction uncertainty and the quadrature sum of the UEH and theoretical uncertainties. Both the UEH and theoretical uncertainties include contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties. An 8.8% uncertainty common to all points due to the integrated luminosity determination is also present, but not included in the systematic values quoted below.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the same-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the opposite-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the same-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the same-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the opposite-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the opposite-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.