Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ N_{jets}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ N_{jets}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{jj}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{jj}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ H_{T}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ H_{T}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \phi_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \phi_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$ (Fig. 8 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$ (Fig. 8 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ H_{T}$ (Fig. 8 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ H_{T}$ (Fig. 8 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$ (Fig. 8 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$ (Fig. 8 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$ (Fig. 5 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$ (Fig. 5 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{jj}$ (Fig. 7 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{jj}$ (Fig. 7 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 7 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 7 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ N_{jets}$ (Fig. 6 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ N_{jets}$ (Fig. 6 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$ (Fig. 6 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$ (Fig. 6 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll}$ (Fig. 5 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll}$ (Fig. 5 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 8 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 8 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 50 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 50 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } 50 GeV < p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } 50 GeV < p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} > 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} > 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 125 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 125 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } m_{ll\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } m_{ll\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \phi_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \phi_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (a))

Nuclear modification factor of the $\psi$(2S) shown as a function of transverse momentum

Ratio of the $\psi$(2S) over J/$\psi$ cross sections, not corrected for the branching ratio, shown as a function of transverse momentum

Double ratio of the $\psi$(2S) over J/$\psi$ cross sections in Pb--Pb and pp collisions shown as a function of transverse momentum

Raw primary antitriton-to-triton ratio as a function of the momentum p_primary in MC (sigma_inel x 4.0).

Raw TPC/TOF ratio for antitriton as a function of the momentum p_primary in exp. data.

Raw TPC/TOF ratio for antitriton as a function of the momentum p_primary in MC (sigma_inel x 0.5).

Raw TPC/TOF ratio for antitriton as a function of the momentum p_primary in MC (sigma_inel x 1.0).

Raw TPC/TOF ratio for antitriton as a function of the momentum p_primary in MC (sigma_inel x 1.5).

Inelastic interaction cross section of antitriton on an averaged material element of the ALICE detector.

Inelastic interaction cross section of antitriton on an averaged material element of the ALICE detector.

$P_z$ sine coefficients of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of transverse momentum in isobar collisions at 200 GeV.

$P_z$ sine coefficients of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of the number of participants in isobar collisions at 200 GeV. The number of participants for isobar collisions were taken from Table III of Phys.Rev.C105, 014901 (2022) and averaged. Same data as the centrality dependence in Fig. 3.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates over the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Measured partial decay rates $\Delta\Gamma$ (in units of $10^{-15}$ GeV) using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Average of normalized decay rates that are determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the partial decay rates determined with the matrix inversion unfolding method for the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

(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.

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

Exclusive J/psi photoproduction cross section in gamma-p.

Dissociative J/psi photoproduction gamma-p.

Cross section ratio, dissociative J/psi photoproduction gamma-p over exclusive J/psi photoproduction gamma-p.

Dielectron excess spectra as in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV as a function of $m_{\rm ee}$ after subtraction of the hadronicdecay cocktail. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.075$ GeV/$c$.

Dielectron excess spectra as in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the invariant mass interval 0.15<$m_{\rm ee}$<0.6 as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ after subtraction of the hadronicdecay cocktail. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.075$ GeV/$c$.

The (p-p)-K$^-$ correlation function obtained using the data-driven approach.

The p-(p-K$^-$) correlation function obtained using the data-driven approach.

Lower-order contributions to the p-p-K$^-$ correlation function obtained using the data-driven approach.

Measured p-p-K$^+$ correlation function.

Measured p-p-K$^-$ correlation function.

p-p-K$^+$ cumulant.

p-p-K$^-$ cumulant.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{3,1}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,3}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{4,1}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,4}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{2,1}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{1,2}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{3,1}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{1,3}(2,3)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm SC}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{2,1}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,2}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{3,1}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,3}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{4,1}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,4}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{2,1}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{1,2}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{3,1}(2,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm SC}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{2,1}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,2}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{3,1}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,3}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{4,1}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm AC}_{1,4}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{2,1}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{1,2}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Centrality dependence of ${\rm NAC}_{3,1}(3,4)$ in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

Measured coherent J/psi cross section for the XNXN forward class. Note that for each rapidity range the 0n0n uncertainty related to migrations is preceded by a ∓, while the other neutron classes have a ±; this means that these uncertainties are anti-correlated.

Photonuclear cross sections extracted from the UPC measurements.

Nuclear suppression factor extracted from the UPC measurements.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 3-6) as a function of $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

The scaling index, $\beta_{q}$ ($q=$ 3-6), as a function of $q-1$ in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7-200 GeV.

The scaling exponent ($\nu$), as a function of average number of participant nucleons ($\langle N_{part}\rangle$), in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6-200 GeV. The data with the largest number of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ correspond to the most central collisions (0-5\%), and the rest of the points are for 5-10\%, 10-20\%, 20-30\% and 30-40\% centrality, respectively. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 are: 338,289,225,158,108. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV are: 343,299,234,166,114. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV are: 342,294,230,162,111. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV are: 346,292,228,161,111. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV are 347,294,230,164,114. The numbers of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV are:351,299,234,168,117.

Collision energy dependence of the scaling exponent in the 0-10% and 10-40% centrality collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7-200 GeV

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 11.5 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 14.5 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 19.6 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 39 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 54.4 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{2}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{3}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{4}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{5}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

Efficiency corrected and uncorrected $\Delta F_{6}(M)$ as a function of $M^{2}$ in the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 27 GeV

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the most central (0-5\%) Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 5-10\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 10-20\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 20-30\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

The scaled factorial moments, $F_{q}(M)$($q=$ 2-6), of identified charged hadrons ($h^{\pm}$) multiplicity in the 30-40\% centrality Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV.

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 0-5% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 5-10% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 10-20% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 20-30% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

$\Delta F_{q}(M)$ ($q=$ 2-6) as a function of $M^{2}$ in 30-40% centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{_{NN}}}$ = 7.7 GeV

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.

Fourth $q^2$ moment in GeV$^8$ for the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

First $q^2$ moment in GeV$^2$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Second $q^2$ moment in GeV$^4$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Third $q^2$ moment in GeV$^6$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Fourth $q^2$ moment in GeV$^8$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Second central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^4$ for the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Third central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^6$ for the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Fourth central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^8$ for the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Second central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^4$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Third central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^6$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Fourth central $q^2$ moment in GeV$^8$ for the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the first $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the second $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the third $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the second $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the third $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the third $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the fourth and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the first $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the second $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the third $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the second $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the third $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the third $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the fourth and the fourth $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the second central central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the third central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the second central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the third central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the third central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the fourth and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the electron channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the second central central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the third central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the first and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the second central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the third central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the second and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the third central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the third and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

Correlation coefficients for the different lower thresholds between the fourth and the fourth central $q^2$ moment in the muon channel with lower $q^2$ thresholds ranging from $3.0$ GeV$^2$ to $10.0$ GeV$^2$ in steps of $0.5$ GeV$^2$.

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

$P_{\rm H}$ measurements are shown as a function of hyperon $p_{\rm T}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 and 27 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented as lines while systematic uncertainties are represented as boxes. There is no observed dependence of $P_{\rm H}$ on $p_{\rm T}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 or 27 GeV, consistent with previous observations.

$P_{\rm H}$ measurements are shown as a function of hyperon $y$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 and 27 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented as lines while systematic uncertainties are represented as boxes. The data set at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=19.6 GeV takes advantage of STAR upgrades to reach larger $|y|$.

The values of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch} / \mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ averaged over $|\eta|<0.5$ for the INEL, NSD, and INEL>0 event classes at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>0.15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>0.15}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>0.5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>0.5}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>1 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>1}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>2 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>2}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>0.15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>0.15}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>0.5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>0.5}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>1 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>1}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

Pseudorapidity density distributions of charged particles, $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV for the INEL>0 with momentum threshold $p_{T}>2 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ ($\mathrm{INEL>0}_{p_{\mathrm{T}}>2}^{|\eta|<0.8}$).

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) invariant yields in different centrality intervals of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV. The vertical bars and the boxes represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The horizontal bars indicate the bin width.

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) $R_{\rm AA}$ (red circles) as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in different centrality intervals of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV, compared with STAR (yellow stars) and PHENIX (green squares) published results, and Duke ((modified Langevin transport model, blue line) and PHSD (parton-hadron-string dynamics model, orange line) model calculations. Vertical bars and boxes around data points represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties from both Au+Au and $p$+$p$ measurements, respectively. Boxes at unity show the global uncertainties, which for this analysis include the 8% global uncertainty on $p$+$p$ reference and the $N_{\rm coll}$ uncertainties. The left box is for PHENIX and the right one for STAR.

HFE (electrons from semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons) $R_{\rm AA}$ (red circles) as a function of $N_{\rm part}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV, compared with PHENIX measurements (green squares), and Duke (blue line) and PHSD (orange line) model calculations. Vertical bars and boxes around data points represent statistical and systematic uncertainties from Au+Au measurements, respectively. The gray band represents the $N_{\rm coll}$ uncertainties. The boxes at unity show the global uncertainties including the total uncertainties of the $p$+$p$ reference.

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.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 20.0--30.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 50.0--60.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ in 10% most central $Au$+$Au$ collisions.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{dA}$ for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2 in minimum bias $d$+$Au$.

$R_{AA}$ in the 10% most central $Au$+$Au$ collisions.

$R_{dA}$ for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2 measurement in $d$+$Au$.

$R_{dA}$ for $\pi^0$ measurement in $d$+$Au$.

Ratio of $R_{dA}$ in minimum bias $d$+$Au$ and $R_{pA}$ from neutron tagged $d$+$Au$ collisions for ($h^+$+$h^-$)/2.

Ratio of $R_{dA}$ in minimum bias $d$+$Au$ and $R_{pA}$ from neutron tagged $d$+$Au$ collisions for $\pi^0$

HBT parameters of charge-combined kaon pairs, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 3.

$R_o/R_s$ of positive pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of negative pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of charge-combined kaon pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 8.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Summary of extracted parameters in the blast-wave model fit for two fitting conditions. The $T_f$ and $\rho_0$ parameters were obtained by fits to $p_T$ spectra, and the other parameters were obtained by a simultaneous fit to $v_2$ and the HBT radii.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Charged hadron $v_2$($p_T$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from the two-particle cumulant method, the BBC event plane, and the ZDC-SMD event plane for the indicated centralities.

Anisotropy parameter $v_2$ as a function of pseudorapidity within the PHENIX central arms using event planes from the BBC and ZDC-SMD, and from the two-particle cumulant method for centrality 20–40%. The results are shown for three $p_T$ bins, which are from top to bottom: 2.0–3.0, 1.2–1.4 and 0.6–0.8 GeV/$c$.

Comparison of the $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} obtained from the S-N and ZDC-BBC-CNT subevents as a function of pT in the 20–60% centrality range.

Charged hadron $v_2${2} for the PHENIX experiment as a function of $p_T$ in centrality 20–60%.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

The PHENIX $v_2${BBC} and $v_2${ZDC-SMD} from the modified event-plane method for charged hadrons as a function of $p_T$ in different centralities.

$I_{AA}$ versus $p_T^B$ for four trigger $p_T$ bins in HR+SR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/2$) and HR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/6$).

$I_{AA}$ versus $p_T^B$ for four trigger $p_T$ bins in HR+SR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/2$) and HR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/6$).

Truncated mean $<p_T^{\prime}>$ in 1 < $p_T^B$ < 5 GeV/$c$ versus $N_{part}$ for the near-side, away-side shoulder, and head regions for Au+Au and $p$+$p$ for three trigger $p_T$ bins.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV $p$+$p$ collisions.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of centrality for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The scaled variance as a funciton of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

$C_{background}$ correlation for $\Lambda K^{-}$ correlation function in high-multiplicity pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Expected distributions of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR, for the s-channel single-top signal, and for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. Each distribution is normalised to unity. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $W$+jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty bands indicate the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR before the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore not included. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, after subtraction of all backgrounds. The fitted distribution for the simulation of the signal is shown together with the post-fit uncertainty in the backgrounds. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Pre-fit and post-fit event yields in the SR, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The central value of the event yield for each process is calculated by summing the values of the discriminant bin contents, using the nominal expected yield for the pre-fit value, and the best-fit estimate for the post-fit value. The error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature. All sources of systematic uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations and anti-correlations in the post-fit case. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore only included in the post-fit uncertainties.

Observed impact of the different sources of uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. The 'Systematic uncertainties' category combines all sources of systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, including the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors. 'Total' gives the total uncertainty on the measurement.

Observed impact of the different sources of $t\bar{t}$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and 'ME/PS matching' to the matching of the ME to the parton shower.

Observed impact of the different sources of s-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of t-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of $tW$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and '$t\bar{t}$ overlap' to the algorithm removing the overlap between $tW$ and $t\bar{t}$ production at NLO, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of PDF uncertainties on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the $m_{T}^{W}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Nuisance parameters ranked according to their post-fit impacts on the best-fit value of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. In the figure, only the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impacts are shown. The empty (solid) blue rectangles illustrate the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, corresponding to the upper axis. The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is calculated as the difference in the fitted value of $\mu$ between the nominal fit and the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. Several systematic uncertainties are split into different nuisance parameters, which are indicated by NP. JES (JER) indicates jet energy scale (resolution), and $\gamma$ indicates a nuisance parameter associated to the MC statistics in one of the 18 bins numbered from 0 to 17. The black points show the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters, with the error bars representing the post-fit uncertainties. Each nuisance parameter is shown wrt. its nominal value, $\theta_0$, and in units of its pre-fit uncertainty, except the free-floating normalisation factors of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, and the parameters associated to the MC statistics in each bin, for which the post-fit values and uncertainties are shown.

Correlation matrix of the nuisance parameters and of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. The correlations are given after the fit to data. In the figure, only the parameters which have a correlation of at least 0.2 with any other parameter are shown.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, for the collision data used for the measurement, and for 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Measured values of the signal cross-section and of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, obtained by statistical-only fits to the collision data used for the measurement, and to 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The central values and their statistical uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, except the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, which are let free-floating (unlike for the statistical uncertainty on the cross-section quoted in the paper). The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge selected $\bar{p}$ and $p$ triggers both with associated $p$ for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge selected $\bar{p}$ and $p$ triggers both with associated $p$ for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge-inclusive baryon and meson triggers and associated mesons for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yields per trigger on the near side for charge selected and charge selected $p$ and $\bar{p}$ correlations. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$. There is an 11.4% additional normalization error on baryon associated particle points and 8.9% each on the $p$ and $\bar{p}$ associated particle points.

Conditional yields per trigger on the away side for charge selected and charge selected $p$ and $\bar{p}$ correlations. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yields per trigger for baryon and meson triggers with associated mesons. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$. There is an additional 13.6% normalization error.

Fit results based on $k(\delta_{\eta})$=$1/{{2\alpha\xi}/{\delta_{\eta}}}$ ($\xi << \delta_{\eta}$).

$F_{p_T}$ (in percent) of non-random fluctuations as a function of the $p_T$ range over which $M_{p_T}$ is calculated, 0.2 GeV/$c$ < $p_T$ < $p^{max}_T$, for the 20-25% centrality class ($N_{part}$ = 181.6).

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v(Q)$, for central events, as a function of the azimuthal coverage of the detector for data. (Angles in degrees.)

The effect on $v(Q)$ of varying the acceptance in $\varphi_r$. The solid curve shows the expectation from global charge conservation. The 10% most central events are used for data and RQMD. (Angles in degrees.)