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.

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.

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The first-order Fourier coefficients $v_1(p_T)$ for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ identified hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 10%-50% centrality.

The first-order Fourier coefficients $v_1(p_T)$ for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ identified hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 10%-50% centrality.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Cu collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Cu collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{($_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{(e_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{(e_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2$($p_T$ ) for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in comparison with hydrodynamics calculations for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in comparison with hydrodynamics calculations for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The ratio of $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi(1S)$ cross sections, as measured in the dimuon decay channel in pp collisions at 200 GeV over the rapidity interval $1.2<|y|<2.2$, as a function of transverse momentum $p_{T}$.

The double ratios $[\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}]_{pA}/[\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}]_{pp}$. The global systematic uncertainty is $\pm 14\%$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

Data table for $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}$ ratios, measured in the dimuon decay channel. Here "fwd" refers to the forward rapidity interval $1.2<y<2.2$, "bwd" refers to the backward rapidity interval $-2.2<y<-1.2$, and "comb" refers to the rapidity interval $1.2<|y|<2.2$.

Efficiency corrected cumulants of net-charge distributions as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ from Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\kappa \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

The energy dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$, $S \sigma$, $\kappa \sigma^2$, and $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of netcharge distributions for central (0%–5%) Au+Au collisions.

The energy dependence of the chemical freeze-out parameter $\mu_B$.

Away-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in $p+p$ collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

$p+p$ yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

$z_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$R_{g}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $15 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 20$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $20 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 25$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $25 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 30$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $z_{sj}$ for $30 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 40$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $15 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 20$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $20 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 25$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $25 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 30$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

Fully corrected two subjet $\theta_{sj}$ for $30 < p_{\rm{T, jet}} < 40$ GeV/c, R$=$0.4 anti-kT and R$=$0.1 subjets

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$z_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Trigger jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for HardCore Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$\theta_{sj}$ for Matched Recoil jets in pp$+$AuAu Data anti-kT R$=$0.4

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for HardCore R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $\theta_{sj} > 0.1$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.1 < \theta_{sj} < 0.2$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in Au$+$Au collisions

$A_{J}$ for Matched R=0.4 anti-kT jets with $0.2 < \theta_{sj} < 0.3$ in pp$+$AuAu reference

tracking efficiency in pp collisions as a function of track momentum

tracking efficiency in AuAu collisions as a function of track momentum

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Au+Au 200 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru (combined) 200 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta v_1 between proton and anti-proton vs rapidity in Au+Au 27 GeV 50-80% centrality.

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Au+Au 200 GeV.

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr 200 GeV

\Delta dv1/dy as a function of centrality in Au+Au 27 GeV.

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

$d$+Au vs centrality vs $y$. (All uncertainties are absolute. The sys. A uncertainty includes both the statistical uncertainty and the point-to-point uncorrelated systematic, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{CP}$ value. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{CP}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{CP}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Target asymmetry T, recoil asymmetry P, and polarization observable H for $\gamma n \to \eta n$ as a function of the polar center-of-mass angle for bins at the given centroid c.m. energies.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

High $p_T$ ($p_T$ > 6 GeV/$c$) integrated $v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ for (a) $\pi^0$ (b) inclusive photon, and (c) direct photon. Results are shown with both reaction plane detectors$:$ (solid black circles) BBC and (solid red squares) RXN. Each point represents a 10% wide centrality bin from 60%-0%.

Inclusive unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair yield from $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of mass in different $p_T$ slices for the south and north muon arms and the ratio of data to expected sources.

Inclusive unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair yield from $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of mass in different $p_T$ slices for the south and north muon arms and the ratio of data to expected sources.

Inclusive like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair yield from $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of mass in different $p_T$ slices for the south and north muon arms and the ratio of data to expected sources.

Inclusive like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair yield from $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of mass in different $p_T$ slices for the south and north muon arms and the ratio of data to expected sources.

Inclusive like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair yield from $p$+$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of mass in different $p_T$ slices for the south and north muon arms and the ratio of data to expected sources.

The $\mu \mu$ pair data in the charm mass region as a function of $\Delta \phi$.

The $\mu \mu$ pair data in the charm mass region as a function of $\Delta \phi.$

The $\mu \mu$ pair data in the charm mass region as a function of pair $p_T$.

The $\mu \mu$ pair data in the charm mass region as a function of pair $p_T$

The like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data in the bottom mass region as a function of $\Delta \phi$.

The like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data in the bottom mass region as a function of $\Delta \phi$.

The like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data in the bottom mass region as a function of pair $p_T$.

The like-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data in the bottom mass region as a function of pair $p_T$.

The unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data used to determine the Drell-Yan contribution as a function of mass.

The unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data used to determine the Drell-Yan contribution as a function of mass.

The unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data used to determine the Drell-Yan contribution as a function of pair $p_T$.

The unlike-sign $\mu \mu$ pair data used to determine the Drell-Yan contribution as a function of pair $p_T$.

Summary of arm-averaged relative systematic uncertainties for the total bottom cross section $\sigma _{b\bar{b}}$, the differential Drell-Yan cross section $d^{2}\sigma _{DY\implies \mu\mu}/dmdy$, and the $b\bar{b}$ ($c\bar{c}$) differential yields $dN_{b\bar{b}(c\bar{c})\implies \mu\mu}/d\Delta\phi$. The systematic uncertainty type is indicated in the second column and is applicable only to the differential measurements. The uncertainties for the differential measurements vary with azimuthal opening angle, pair $p_{T}$ , or mass. Asymmetric uncertainties are quoted in bracketed values. For the $c\bar{c}$ measurement, the regions $\Delta\phi$ < $\pi$/2, $p_{T}$ < 0.5 GeV/$c$ and $p_{T}$ > 2.0 GeV/$c$ are excluded because the yield approaches zero and relative systematic uncertainties diverge. With these regions excluded, the difference between the systematic uncertainties of all measurements for the south and north muon arms differs by no greater than 2% for all systematic uncertainties sources.

The differential yield $dN/d\phi$ of unlike-sign muon pairs from charm with mass 1.5-2.5 GeV/$c^2$ in the ideal muon arm acceptance, as a function of the pair azimuthal opening angle. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[rad$^{-1}$].

The differential yield $dN/d\phi$ of like-sign muon pairs from bottom with mass 3.5-10.0 GeV/$c^2$ in the ideal muon arm acceptance, as a function of the pair azimuthal opening angle. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[rad$^{-1}$].

The differential yield $dN/dp_{T}$ of unlike-sign muon pairs from bottom with mass 1.5-2.5 GeV/$c^2$ in the ideal muon arm acceptance, as a function of the pair transverse momentum. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[$c$/GeV].

The differential yield $dN/dp_{T}$ of like-sign muon pairs from bottom with mass 3.5-10.0 GeV/$c^2$ in the ideal muon arm acceptance, as a function of the pair transverse momentum. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[$c$/GeV].

$\sigma_{b\bar{b}}$ from fit using different models. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

The differential Drell-Yan cross section $\frac{d^{2}\sigma}{dmdy}$ as a function of the muon pair mass, where the muon pair rapidity |$y\mu\mu$| is between 1.2 and 2.2. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[pb $c^2$/GeV]. In the data table below, the value of mass correspond to the center of the stated range.

The differential Drell-Yan cross section $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}} \frac{d^{2}\sigma}{dydp_{T}}$ as a function of the muon pair transverse momentum, where the muon pair mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ is between 4.8 and 8.2 GeV/$c^2$ and the muon pair rapidity |$y\mu\mu$| is between 1.2 and 2.2. Statistical (stat.) and types B and C systematic errors (sys. B & sys. C) are all $10^{-9}\times$[pb $c^2$/GeV]. In the data table below, the value of p_T correspond to the center of the stated range.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The nuclear modification factor for MB (0%–94%).

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–10%.

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–20%.

The nuclear modification factor for 20%–40%.

The nuclear modification factor for 40%–60%.

The nuclear modification factor for 60%–94%.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.

The relative nuclear-modification factor for U+U and Au+Au as a function of collision centrality.

The ratio of the invariant yield for U+U to that for Au+Au, as a function of collision centrality.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 4c

Figure 5a

Figure 5b

Figure 5c

Figure 7

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

Figure 8c

Figure 9a

Figure 9b

Figure 9c

Figure 10a

Figure 10b

Figure 10c

Lévy scale parameter $R$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The graphical representation of statistical and systematic uncertainties is the same as in Fig. 4.

Lévy index parameter $\alpha$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated similarly to Fig. 4. The horizontal line, %\aplha$ = 1.207, represents the 0%-30% centrality average value of %\aplha$.

Inverse square of the Lévy scale parameter 1/$R^2$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.

New scale parameter $\hat{R}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair, with a linear fit. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.

Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.